From fe9e97ce6defb15dc5f5716ca0d8684fbaffba0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lukas Eder <lukas.eder@datageekery.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:32:50 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "[jOOQ/jOOQ#15564] MutablePOJOMapper should be able to
 map to instance, even if there isn't a default constructor"

---
 jOOQ/src/main/java/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.java | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/jOOQ/src/main/java/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.java b/jOOQ/src/main/java/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.java
index d58475aef5..e84cca3dc9 100644
--- a/jOOQ/src/main/java/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.java
+++ b/jOOQ/src/main/java/org/jooq/impl/DefaultRecordMapper.java
@@ -410,9 +410,7 @@ public class DefaultRecordMapper<R extends Record, E> implements RecordMapper<R,
 
         // [#1340] Allow for using non-public default constructors
         try {
-            MutablePOJOMapper m = instance != null
-                ? new MutablePOJOMapper(null, instance)
-                : new MutablePOJOMapper(new ConstructorCall<>(accessible(type.getDeclaredConstructor())), null);
+            MutablePOJOMapper m = new MutablePOJOMapper(new ConstructorCall<>(accessible(type.getDeclaredConstructor())), instance);
 
             // [#10194] Check if the POJO is really mutable. There might as well
             //          be a no-args constructor for other reasons, e.g. when