Hi @Chessray, left a few small comments, implementation looks good overall. Could you also add the tests for @MapperConfig?

Thanks @hduelme, I hope I've got them all. Could you please check again?

@Chessray thanks for the adjustments.

One last thought: currently, DEFAULT is used to represent package-private visibility. Would something like PACKAGE_PRIVATE be more intuitive and make the intent clearer? Let me know what you think.

I had this exact mental discussion and ended up with DEFAULT because of the same terminology being used in Accessibility.java. I find PACKAGE_PRIVATE more descriptive myself. Maybe we can rename both places? Does @filiphr want to chime in here?

Out of curiosity, are you planning to use this feature mapstruct-spring-extensions?

I don't really see how. This influences the Mapper generation, not the Adapter.

Nice addition @Chessray. From the point of our API, I personally find the LIKE_ABSTRACTION a bit strange. What I would propose is to use DEFAULT for the mapstruct default (i.e. The current like abstraction) and use PACKAGE_PROTECTED for package protected.

I had this exact mental discussion and ended up with DEFAULT because of the same terminology being used in Accessibility.java. I find PACKAGE_PRIVATE more descriptive myself

@Chessray Good point. I think we should rename Accessibility.java too. DEFAULT doesn't really fit.

I don't really see how. This influences the Mapper generation, not the Adapter.

Makes sense. Do you think we should adjust the examples in the extension? My thoughts were based on the original issue mentioning Spring.

Thanks guys, this should be it now. @hduelme I'll take a look at the Spring Extension examples separately. Maybe I'll only mention it in the documentation.

@Chessray Nice one. Thanks