Beans created by factories have their interceptor(s) from factory method rather than the bean classes about micronaut-core

[dstepanov]

Right now, method annotations are merged with the class annotations; that's why the interceptor is created. If you don't need it, don't include annotations that require an interceptor.

[nbrugger-tgm]

But shouldn't at least the @NotNull on BeanThatShouldHaveInterceptor create an interceptor @dstepanov

https://github.com/nbrugger-tgm/micronaut-reproductions/blob/a94c18cb23be177f89f02c63f2fcb0076482ddd4/micronaut-4-factory-regression-3/src/main/java/com/example/BeanThatShouldHaveInterceptor.java#L6

[graemerocher]

there is a debate to be had an maybe an annotation hint could be provided whether the annotation applies to the factory method or the class. Currently they apply to the class and changing this would be a breaking change that we cannot implement. If you want a new feature then sure create a feature request to allow disambiguation.

[nbrugger-tgm]

I mean I do not have too much of a problem with the Annotation from the factory being applied to the class (altho yes it should be documented)

But as far as I see it in the case of BeanThatShouldHaveInterceptor the missing interceptor is more a bug - because the validations set in BeanThatShouldHaveInterceptor do not apply and it's unnoticeable unless there are tests on it -> its a silent ignoring of annotations. If it is a technical limitation (annotations that are on classes constructed in Factories do not work) an error or more likely warning should appear.

Calling a @NotNull annotated method with null being possible is a bug from my point of view