Yeah I would say no as well. We should make clear on our dev guide that you also should be marking those things with an Interface Audience marking if you don't intend them to be at the downstream API visibility of the parent class.
(IIRC we also use VisibleForTesting in IA.Private classes to proactively explain why some internal looking member is at a wider Java access scope.) On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 11:39 Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > This came up over on the 2.3.0RC0 thread, so let's open it for proper > discussion. In that context, we observe method signature changes to a > method marked with the Guava VisibleForTesting annotation. The method is a > protected method on a IA.Public class. There is no method-level IA > annotation. > > Do we consider the VisibleForTesting annotation as a specifier for our > compatibility guidelines? > > I am of the opinion that no, it is not an InterfaceAudience annotation, and > so it is not applicable for defining our public API. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Nick >
