Resolve type variable recursively in GenericTypeResolver

[quaff]

• Addresses GenericTypeResolver.resolveType() should resolve ParameterizedType recursively #24963

[quaff]

@jhoeller Could you review it?

[quaff]

Rebased to main, ready for review.

[snicoll]

Thanks for the PR @quaff - This looks promising as it fixes another issue that was reported against generics handling.

Unfortunately, the build is broken with those changes, see https://ge.spring.io/s/kktsevdqhmgqc/tests/overview?outcome=FAILED.

[quaff]

Thanks for the PR @quaff - This looks promising as it fixes another issue that was reported against generics handling.

Unfortunately, the build is broken with those changes, see https://ge.spring.io/s/kktsevdqhmgqc/tests/overview?outcome=FAILED.

The failed tests should adapt changes on ResolvableType.java, I've updated the commit.

[snicoll]

The failed tests should adapt changes on ResolvableType.java, I've updated the commit.

With those changes in place, you had to change some assertions that looks invalid to me now. For instance, event listening that accepts a String as input would be considered if the type is EntityWrapper<?>. Same for an event that accepts an EntityWrapper<?> would now accept a List<?>.

This may be something that wrong elsewhere that the fix reveals but changing the assertion isn't what I had in mind.

Given the impact this has so late, I've moved this one for 6.2. If you have time to review the above, that would be much appreciated.

[quaff]

The failed tests should adapt changes on ResolvableType.java, I've updated the commit.

With those changes in place, you had to change some assertions that looks invalid to me now. For instance, event listening that accepts a String as input would be considered if the type is EntityWrapper<?>. Same for an event that accepts an EntityWrapper<?> would now accept a List<?>.

This may be something that wrong elsewhere that the fix reveals but changing the assertion isn't what I had in mind.

Given the impact this has so late, I've moved this one for 6.2. If you have time to review the above, that would be much appreciated.

I've fixed that, please review. @snicoll

[snicoll]

@quaff with #31690 (comment) some code that we didn't intend to have has been reverted. If you have time to rebase, it would be much appreciated.

[quaff]

@quaff with #31690 (comment) some code that we didn't intend to have has been reverted. If you have time to rebase, it would be much appreciated.

Done.