feat: Support @ConditionalOnMissingBean for @DubboService by heliang666s · Pull Request #15875 · apache/dubbo

heliang666s · 2025-12-15T18:01:45Z

What is the purpose of the change?

Support @ConditionalOnMissingBean for @DubboService #15814

codecov-commenter · 2025-12-15T18:25:09Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 16.41791% with 56 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.74%. Comparing base (be40746) to head (541dcef).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on 3.3.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java	16.41%	46 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##                3.3   #15875   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     60.74%   60.74%           
- Complexity    11754    11759    +5     
=========================================
  Files          1949     1949           
  Lines         88898    88965   +67     
  Branches      13407    13432   +25     
=========================================
+ Hits          53998    54046   +48     
- Misses        29337    29355   +18     
- Partials       5563     5564    +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21	`32.20% <0.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
integration-tests-java8	`32.30% <0.00%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
samples-tests-java21	`32.20% <0.00%> (+0.08%)`	⬆️
samples-tests-java8	`29.69% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
unit-tests-java11	`59.03% <16.41%> (+0.02%)`	⬆️
unit-tests-java17	`58.48% <16.41%> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
unit-tests-java21	`58.49% <16.41%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
unit-tests-java25	`58.43% <16.41%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
unit-tests-java8	`58.99% <16.41%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

zrlw · 2025-12-18T02:10:03Z

add test cases to check its effectiveness?

Copilot

Pull request overview

This pull request adds support for Spring Boot's @ConditionalOnMissingBean annotation when used with @DubboService on Java config @bean methods. This addresses issue #15814, enabling developers to conditionally register Dubbo services based on the presence or absence of other beans in the application context.

Changes:

Added logic in ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor to detect and respect @ConditionalOnMissingBean annotations
Implemented conditional checking that prevents ServiceBean registration when matching beans exist
Added comprehensive test cases to verify the conditional behavior works correctly

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

File	Description
ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java	Added shouldSkipDueToConditionalOnMissingBean() and hasExistingBeanOfType() methods to check for @ConditionalOnMissingBean and skip ServiceBean registration when the condition is not met
JavaConfigBeanTest.java	Added test cases testConditionalOnMissingBeanForDubboService() and testConditionalOnMissingBeanForDubboServiceWhenMissing() along with supporting configuration classes to verify the feature works correctly

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

...fig/dubbo-config-spring/src/test/java/org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/JavaConfigBeanTest.java

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

...fig/dubbo-config-spring/src/test/java/org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/JavaConfigBeanTest.java

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-27T08:30:42Z

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

+        if (beanNames != null) {
+            for (String beanName : beanNames) {
+                if (hasExistingBeanName(beanName, refServiceBeanName)) {
+                    return true;
+                }
+            }


The code checks if beanNames is not null but doesn't check if it's an empty array before iterating. While iterating over an empty array is safe and won't cause errors, it would be more explicit and consistent with the beanTypes handling (line 697) to check for both null and empty array. Consider adding a length check: if (beanNames != null && beanNames.length > 0) for consistency and clarity.

Copilot · 2026-01-27T08:30:42Z

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

+        if (beanTypes == null || beanTypes.length == 0) {
+            return false;
+        }
+
+        for (Class<?> beanType : beanTypes) {
+            if (hasExistingBeanOfType(beanType, refServiceBeanName)) {


The implementation doesn't handle the default behavior of @ConditionalOnMissingBean when no value, type, or name is specified. According to Spring Boot's @ConditionalOnMissingBean contract, when no parameters are provided, it should default to the return type of the annotated method. Currently, when no bean types are found (lines 722-723), the method returns false, which means the bean will always be registered even if a bean of the same return type already exists.

To fix this, you should check if no attributes were specified and default to the return type of the factory method. You can use SpringCompatUtils.getFactoryMethodReturnType to get the return type and check if a bean of that type already exists.

Suggested change

if (beanTypes == null || beanTypes.length == 0) {

return false;

}

for (Class<?> beanType : beanTypes) {

if (hasExistingBeanOfType(beanType, refServiceBeanName)) {

if (beanTypes != null && beanTypes.length > 0) {

for (Class<?> beanType : beanTypes) {

if (hasExistingBeanOfType(beanType, refServiceBeanName)) {

return true;

}

}

} else {

// No explicit name, value, or type specified: default to the factory method's return type

Class<?> returnType = SpringCompatUtils.getFactoryMethodReturnType(beanDefinition);

if (returnType != null && hasExistingBeanOfType(returnType, refServiceBeanName)) {

Copilot · 2026-01-27T08:30:43Z

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

+                    if (!ClassUtils.isPresent(resolvedName, classLoader)) {
+                        continue;
+                    }
+                    resolvedTypes.add(resolveClassName(resolvedName, classLoader));


The call to resolveClassName at line 715 could throw IllegalArgumentException or LinkageError if the class cannot be loaded, even though ClassUtils.isPresent checked for the class presence. This can happen due to ClassLoader issues or race conditions. Consider wrapping this call in a try-catch block to handle potential exceptions gracefully and continue processing other type names instead of failing the entire operation.

Suggested change

resolvedTypes.add(resolveClassName(resolvedName, classLoader));

try {

resolvedTypes.add(resolveClassName(resolvedName, classLoader));

} catch (IllegalArgumentException | LinkageError ex) {

// Skip this type if it cannot be resolved at this point

}

Copilot · 2026-01-27T08:30:43Z

...fig/dubbo-config-spring/src/test/java/org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/JavaConfigBeanTest.java

+    @Test
+    void testConditionalOnMissingBeanForDubboService() {
+        AnnotationConfigApplicationContext context = new AnnotationConfigApplicationContext(
+                ConditionalTestConfiguration.class,
+                ExistingServiceConfiguration.class,
+                ConditionalServiceConfiguration.class);
+        try {
+            Assertions.assertFalse(context.containsBeanDefinition("conditionalDemoService"));
+
+            Map<String, ServiceBean> serviceBeans = context.getBeansOfType(ServiceBean.class);
+            Assertions.assertEquals(0, serviceBeans.size());
+
+            Map<String, DemoService> demoServices = context.getBeansOfType(DemoService.class);
+            Assertions.assertEquals(1, demoServices.size());
+            Assertions.assertNotNull(demoServices.get("existingDemoService"));
+        } finally {
+            context.close();
+        }
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    void testConditionalOnMissingBeanForDubboServiceWhenMissing() {
+        AnnotationConfigApplicationContext context = new AnnotationConfigApplicationContext(
+                ConditionalTestConfiguration.class, ConditionalServiceConfiguration.class);
+        try {
+            Assertions.assertTrue(context.containsBeanDefinition("conditionalDemoService"));
+
+            Map<String, ServiceBean> serviceBeans = context.getBeansOfType(ServiceBean.class);
+            Assertions.assertEquals(1, serviceBeans.size());
+
+            Map<String, DemoService> demoServices = context.getBeansOfType(DemoService.class);
+            Assertions.assertEquals(1, demoServices.size());
+            Assertions.assertNotNull(demoServices.get("conditionalDemoService"));
+        } finally {
+            context.close();
+        }
+    }


The test coverage is missing several important edge cases for the @ConditionalOnMissingBean feature:

Testing @ConditionalOnMissingBean without any parameters (should default to return type)

Testing with the 'name' attribute to check bean by name

Testing with the 'type' attribute using string class names

Testing behavior when multiple beans of the target type exist

Testing interaction with bean aliases

Consider adding additional test methods to cover these scenarios to ensure the implementation handles all supported @ConditionalOnMissingBean configurations correctly.

Copilot · 2026-01-27T08:30:43Z

.../org/apache/dubbo/config/spring/beans/factory/annotation/ServiceAnnotationPostProcessor.java

+        if (shouldSkipDueToConditionalOnMissingBean(refServiceBeanName, refServiceBeanDefinition)) {
+            if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
+                logger.debug("Skip registering ServiceBean for bean [" + refServiceBeanName
+                        + "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean condition not satisfied");


The debug message at line 623-624 says "condition not satisfied" which is somewhat misleading. When @ConditionalOnMissingBean condition is "not satisfied", it means a bean of the specified type already exists, so the new bean should not be registered. However, the phrasing "condition not satisfied" might suggest something went wrong. Consider rewording it to be more clear, such as "bean already exists" or "condition evaluated to false - bean exists". For example: "Skip registering ServiceBean for bean [" + refServiceBeanName + "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean - bean of required type already exists"

Suggested change

+ "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean condition not satisfied");

+ "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean - bean of required type already exists");

heliang666s added 2 commits January 25, 2026 19:31

feat: Support @ConditionalOnMissingBean for @DubboService

7e51859

test: add cases for ConditionalOnMissingBean with DubboService

41922ef

heliang666s force-pushed the conditional-on-missing-bean-for-dubbo-service branch from 8dafa89 to 41922ef Compare January 25, 2026 11:49

test: add ConditionalOnMissingBean coverage for @DubboService

dd3403f

zrlw requested a review from Copilot January 27, 2026 04:05

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of zrlw January 27, 2026 04:05 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

heliang666s and others added 2 commits January 27, 2026 14:57

Apply suggestions from code review

de3e490

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

fix: tolerate missing/optional types in ConditionalOnMissingBean

541dcef

zrlw requested a review from Copilot January 27, 2026 08:24

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of zrlw January 27, 2026 08:24 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: Support @ConditionalOnMissingBean for @DubboService#15875

feat: Support @ConditionalOnMissingBean for @DubboService#15875
heliang666s wants to merge 5 commits into3.3from
conditional-on-missing-bean-for-dubbo-service

heliang666s commented Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Dec 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

zrlw commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

	+ "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean condition not satisfied");
	+ "] due to @ConditionalOnMissingBean - bean of required type already exists");

Conversation

heliang666s commented Dec 15, 2025

What is the purpose of the change?

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Dec 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

zrlw commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

codecov-commenter commented Dec 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading