Add support for composed annotations to all annotations

[eeverman]

Looking through the source code of the annotations used to register extensions, it looks like none of them (or none that I could find) support composed annotations, that is, reusing the annotation in another annotation.

JUnit's user manual has a few examples of this in the declarative extension registration section. It would allow users who repeatedly use several extensions together to bundle those into a single annotation like this:

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Target({ TYPE, METHOD, ANNOTATION_TYPE })
@Stopwatch  @DefaultLocal("Local.UK") @SetSystemProperty(key="BROILER" value="ON")
public @interface StandardTestSetup { }

To enable that, two things would be needed:

1. The ANNOTATION_TYPE would need to be added to the @Target of the annotations
2. The PioneerAnnotationUtils would need to be able to find them.

Currently the PioneerAnnotationUtils class only looks for the specified annotation - It doesn't check to see what meta-annotations an annotation might have. I think that happens (or doesn't happen) right here.

[Michael1993]

Hi @eeverman! Thank you for opening the issue.

I've looked through our annotations and it seems we do have some of them that do not support composed annotations (namely @StdIo and @ReportEntry). All our other annotations types either have ANNOTATION_TYPE or TYPE in their @Target.

I also looked at PioneerAnnotationUtils and I can kind of see your issue? The line you are pointing out is a naïve approach and if we are trying to find only the first meta-annotation it wouldn't work. I would like to point out that the method would still work (but could take a bit longer), I'm only referring to the approach taken in the specific line you mentioned.

[eeverman]

Nice fix - Thank you!

I had been looking at StdIo when I reported the issue.... and I guess forgot that TYPE included the annotation type. I also had a test that was trying to verify that composed annotation worked, but I see now that it included some other assumptions.

Thanks again!