Conversation
make object accessibility optional
|
This looks like it duplicates most of #1558 Instead you should create a PR against my branch, otherwise I can't tell what you've added or changed. |
|
Thanks for the clarification!You're right — the PR was based on master, which makes the diff include most of #1558. |
|
I’ve split out the test into a separate commit and based it on |
|
There are still 37 files changed and 16 commits which can't be right. You likely want the PR to be against my branch (in my fork). |
|
Thanks for confirming — that makes sense. I double-checked the history and confirmed that the test-only commit is already |
|
There are still 37 files changed and 16 commits which can't be right. You likely want the PR to be against my branch (in my fork). |
I added a focused unit test (ReflectionDiffBuilderAccessibilityTest) to demonstrate that
ReflectionDiffBuilder still forces reflective access to private fields even when
force-access is disabled.
This test shows that ReflectionDiffBuilder has not yet been migrated to the opt-in
accessibility controls introduced via AbstractReflection in PR #1558, and still relies
on legacy forced reflection behavior.
The test is intentionally minimal and serves as executable evidence of the current
behavior discussed in LANG-1711.