Support @RequestBody in interface method when computing "consumes" condition

[renatomameli]

Problem

Spring currently ignores @RequestBody annotations declared on interface methods when computing the ConsumesCondition. As a result, the required = false flag is not respected, and requests without a body and without a Content-Type fail to match the mapping — even though null should be allowed.

This leads to situations where e.g. application/json is unnecessarily enforced in the ConsumesCondition, despite @RequestBody(required = false) being declared (e.g., on an interface method).

Solution

This change switches to using AnnotatedMethod for inspecting method parameters, which ensures that annotations from both interface and implementation methods are considered. This allows Spring to correctly determine whether a request body is required and to avoid enforcing a Content-Type match when required = false.

Tests

Includes tests verifying correct behavior for:

• Interface methods with @RequestBody(required = false)
• Implementations that override with required = true

[sickinga]

Thank you @renatomameli. We really rely on this fix and it would be great if we can get this in an upcoming release! @sbrannen

[sbrannen]

Please note that your httpExchangeAnnotation*() test methods do not involve @HttpExchange annotations.

In addition, if we were to support processing of @RequestBody annotations on parameters in interface methods, we would need to do so not only for Spring MVC (as in this PR) but also for Spring WebFlux.

In any case, we will discuss within the team whether we want to make this change, and we'll get back to you.

Cheers

[renatomameli]

Please note that your httpExchangeAnnotation*() test methods do not involve @HttpExchange annotations.

In addition, if we were to support processing of @RequestBody annotations on parameters in interface methods, we would need to do so not only for Spring MVC (as in this PR) but also for Spring WebFlux.

In any case, we will discuss within the team whether we want to make this change, and we'll get back to you.

Cheers

Thanks for the feedback! I’ve renamed them to more accurately reflect their purpose. Looking forward to your team’s decision.

[sbrannen]

Thanks for updating the test method names.

We have decided to support this feature.

Thus, please introduce analogous support in org.springframework.web.reactive.result.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping as well, including appropriate tests.

[renatomameli]

Thanks for updating the test method names.

We have decided to support this feature.

Thus, please introduce analogous support in org.springframework.web.reactive.result.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping as well, including appropriate tests.

Thanks for the feedback.

I’ve implemented the support in org.springframework.web.reactive.result.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerMapping, along with corresponding tests. Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like to adjust.