Default value in lombok. How to init default with both constructor and builder

My guess is that it's not possible (without having delomboked the code). But why don't you just implement the constructor you need? Lombok is meant to make your life easier, and if something won't work with Lombok, just do it the old fashioned way.

@Data
@Builder
@AllArgsConstructor
public class UserInfo { 
    private int id;
    private String nick;
    @Builder.Default
    private boolean isEmailConfirmed = true;
    
    public UserInfo(){
        isEmailConfirmed = true;
    }
}

Console output:

ui: true
ui2: true

Update
As of 01/2021, this bug seems to be fixed in Lombok, at least for generated constructors. Note that there is still a similar issue when you mix Builder.Default and explicit constructors.

Since the @Builder.Default annotation is broken, I wouldn't use it at all. You can, however, use the following approach by moving the @Builder annotation from class level to the custom constructor:

@Data
@NoArgsConstructor
public class UserInfo {

    private int id;
    private String nick;
    private boolean isEmailConfirmed = true;

    @Builder
    @SuppressWarnings("unused")
    private UserInfo(int id, String nick, Boolean isEmailConfirmed) {
        this.id = id;
        this.nick = nick;
        this.isEmailConfirmed = Optional.ofNullable(isEmailConfirmed).orElse(this.isEmailConfirmed);
    }
}

This way you ensure:

• the field isEmailConfirmed is initialized only in one place making the code less error-prone and easier to maintain later
• the UserInfo class will be initialized the same way either you use a builder or a no-args constructor

In other words, the condition holds true:

new UserInfo().equals(UserInfo.builder().build())

In that case, the object creation is consistent no matter how you create it. It is especially important when your class is used by a mapping framework or by JPA provider when you are not instantiating it manually by a builder but a no-args constructor is invoked behind your back to create the instance.

The approach described above is very similar but it has a major drawback. You have to initialize the field in two places which makes the code error-prone as you are required to keep the values consistent.