@name annotation should be used if there's a naming style collision

[GeorgeII]

Hi!

Let's say I have a config where everything is in kebab case except for one substructure (bar in the example below):

foo {
  foo-foo = "value1"
}
another-foo {
  nested-another-foo = "value2"
}
bar {
  bArBaR-Bar = "value3"
}

I wrote case classes to describe these entities:

import zio.{Config, Scope, ZIO, ZIOAppArgs, ZIOAppDefault}
import zio.config._
import zio.config.magnolia._
import zio.config.typesafe.TypesafeConfigProvider

object ZioConfig extends ZIOAppDefault {
  case class Foo(fooFoo: String)
  case class AnotherFoo(nestedAnotherFoo: String)
  case class Bar(@name("bArBaR-Bar") barBarBar: String)

  case class MyConfig(foo: Foo, anotherFoo: AnotherFoo, bar: Bar)

  val myConfigAutomatic: Config[MyConfig] = deriveConfig[MyConfig].mapKey(toKebabCase)

  override def run: ZIO[Any with ZIOAppArgs with Scope, Any, Any] = {
    read(myConfigAutomatic.from(TypesafeConfigProvider.fromResourcePath())).orDie
      .tap(conf => ZIO.succeed(println(conf)))
  }
}

I need everything in kebab case except for the barBarBar field that was explicitly marked with the @name annotation in my case class. It seems like the @name annotation does not work as expected as it's overridden by .mapKey(toKebabCase) and I get the exception:

zio.Config$Error$MissingData: (Missing data at bar.b-ar-ba-r-bar: Expected barb-ar-ba-r-bar to be set in properties)

Probably, the @name annotation should have a higher priority even when mixed with .mapKey(toKebabCase) since a manual field name definition is almost always more important than an automatic one?