I am looking into an issue where an invalid association definition on a mapped superclass is not rejected as it should be.

It turns out the assocation is not even reported by the mapping driver, due to the following lines of code.

This is present in the attribute driver as well. To add insult to injury, the thing I am trying to chase depends on wheter an association is mapped in a public or private property.

I have seen this exact piece of code has been questioned in #5744 before, but neither that nor the reference to #4198 help.

Can anybody help reasoning about this – what's the purpose of these continuations, and what does it have to do with private in mapped superclasses?

Maybe it has to do with that the Reflection API also reports non-private properties inherited from base classes, but I don't get it.

How do we want to treat such inherited properties, and/or can we tell whether a property was just inherited or inhertied + redeclared?