On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:10:54 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> This pull request is identical with the RFR previously sent for the Mercurial > repository: > > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/2020-August/001796.html > > I'm copy-pasting the comments from the original RFR below. > > Most of the new code is added to the Extern class where it fits in quite > nicely and can use the existing supporting > code for setting up external links. > The default behaviour is to generate links to docs.oracle.com for released > versions and download.java.net for > prereleases. Platform documentation URLs can be configured using the new > --link-platform-properties <url> option to > provide a properties file with URLs pointing to to alternative locations. See > the CSR linked above for more details on > the new options. The feature can be disabled using the --no-platform-link > option, generating the same output as > previously. One problem I had to solve was how to handle the transition > from prerelease versions to final releases, > since the location of the documentation changes in this transition. For > obvious reasons we don’t want to make that > switch via code change at a time shortly before release. The way it is done > is that we determine if the current > javadoc instance is a prerelease version as indicated by the Version returned > by BaseConfiguration#getDocletVersion(), > and then check whether the release/source version of the current javadoc > execution uses the same (latest) version. This > means that that only the latest version will ever generate prerelease links > (e.g. running current javadoc 16 with > source version 15 will generate links to the final release documentation) but > I think this is acceptable. Another > issue I spent some time getting right was tests. New releases require a new > element-list resource*), so tests have to > pick up new releases. On the other hand, we don’t want hundreds of tests to > fail when a new release is added, ideally > there should be one test with a clear message. Because of this, when a > release is encountered for which no > element-list is available a warning is generated instead of an error, and the > documentation is generated without > platform links as if running with --no-platform-link option. This allows most > existing tests to pass and just the new > test to fail with a relatively clear message of what is wrong. > *) I also thought about generating the element-list for the current release > at build time. It’s quite involved, and we > still need to maintain element-lists for older versions, so I’m not sure > it’s worth it. > > For existing tests that check output affected by the new option I added the > --no-platform-link option to disable the > feature. Otherwise we’d have to update those tests with each new release (or > else freeze the tests to use some static > release or source version, which we don’t want either). I updated the CSR to > the new code. It also needs to be > reviewed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251181 > > Thanks, > Hannes I think it would be awesome if we could generate (most of) the {element,package}-list-VERSION.txt from the ct.sym historical data at build time. This would (hopefully) help with long-term maintenance. I've started to sketch that here: https://github.com/lahodaj/jdk/commit/36c1510587a4b050b148eda87ae7a7a89aff9690 Some comments on the attempt: -in this PR, there is package-list-9.txt - should it be element-list-9.txt, and should it contain module names (dtto element-list-10.txt)? -we may (for historical reasons) want to keep the lists for 7, 8, 9 and 10 (as the historical data in ct.sym do not exactly match what is in the package/element lists). It would be better to generate everything, but having a fixed list for some of the past versions would be better than having to create a new list for each new release. -the patch does not yet generate the list for the current release, but that should be doable. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/171
