Currently I ignored java doc check in checkstyle configuration: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-eagle/blob/develop/eagle-dev/checkstyle.xml#L236

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wu [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 2016年8月25日 13:09
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Please take notice to check-in only meaningful javadoc.

No, for most buildings including PR verification, develop check-in, we don't 
have to run javadoc phase. The issue was exposed when I tried to deploy 
snapshot artifacts, using jdk1.8.x to compile and execute deploying commands 
which include the javadoc phase by default.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Edward Zhang <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Run 'mvn javadoc:javadoc javadoc:test-javadoc', it now immediately 
> failed :-(
>
> So looks like mvn javadoc can find out useless param.  Do we need do 
> both checkstyle and javadoc while in building?
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:2.9.1:javadoc 
> (default-cli) on project alert-common: An error has occurred in 
> JavaDocs report
> generation:
> [ERROR] Exit code: 1 -
> /Users/yonzhang/projects/incubator-eagle/eagle-core/
> eagle-alert-parent/eagle-alert/alert-common/src/main/
> java/org/apache/eagle/alert/config/ConfigBusProducer.java:32:
> warning: no description for @param
> [ERROR] * @param topic
> [ERROR] ^
> [ERROR]
> /Users/yonzhang/projects/incubator-eagle/eagle-core/
> eagle-alert-parent/eagle-alert/alert-common/src/main/
> java/org/apache/eagle/alert/config/ConfigBusProducer.java:33:
> warning: no description for @param
> [ERROR] * @param config
> [ERROR] ^
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This bugs me too. FWIW, in Calcite we run ‘mvn javadoc:javadoc 
> > javadoc:test-javadoc’ as part of the automated build (as of JDK 1.8, 
> > javadoc is quite strict). Neither javadoc nor checkstyle will flag
> useless
> > javadoc like ‘@param x’, so I wrote a checkstyle module[1] and call 
> > it
> from
> > Calcite’s check style config[2].
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/julianhyde/toolbox <https://github.com/ 
> > julianhyde/toolbox>
> >
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1034 < 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1034>
> >
> > > On Aug 24, 2016, at 12:13 AM, Hao Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good reminding. @Contributors, not only about java docs, pls. make 
> > > sure
> > all
> > > the code style matches the checkstyle, currently I just keep the
> > checkstyle
> > > as WARNING as we still have lots of style warning to clean, in 
> > > future
> we
> > > should throw ERROR if any check-style doesn't match. Pls. start to
> spend
> > > sometime cleaning the checkstyle warning in your code right now.
> > >
> > > - Hao
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Michael Wu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi guys,
> > >>
> > >> Recently, when I tried to deploy eagle 0.5.0-incubating-snapshot
> > artifacts
> > >> based on develop branch, the entire build flow was broken by lots 
> > >> of
> > faulty
> > >> javadoc, which are classified in following aspects. I'll try to 
> > >> erase illegal/meaningless javadoc, and please PAY ATTENTION to 
> > >> your
> > contribution
> > >> and avoid checking-in such inappropriate javadoc:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Illegal character found, e.g. "<", or ">". Except for 
> > >> recognized
> html
> > >> tags, such as "<pre></pre>", "<b></b>", etc., other angle 
> > >> brackets
> > should
> > >> be replaced with entities, say, "<" should be "&lt;", and ">" 
> > >> should
> be
> > >> "&gt;".
> > >>
> > >> 2. Many "<p>" and "</p>" found in apache license comment, 
> > >> enclosing
> the
> > >> license url. This kind of "p" tag is not allowed by javadoc, and
> > actually,
> > >> it's useless to be placed in the license comment either. Next 
> > >> time you create a new java file, please refer to another existing 
> > >> java file and
> > >> copy+paste the correct license comment to the head of your new 
> > >> copy+file,
> and
> > >> make sure it does contain the "<p></p>" pair around the license url.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Many meaningless parameters and javadoc blocks found in files. 
> > >> This issue could be more descriptive with a sample, see below 
> > >> javadoc
> > fragment
> > >> that appears many times in eagle project on develop branch:
> > >>    /**
> > >>     *
> > >>     * @param arg1
> > >>     * @param arg2
> > >>     * @return
> > >>     */
> > >>    This is a sample for rather meaningless javadoc. First, if 
> > >> there is
> > no
> > >> description, why shall we add this javadoc? Seconds, if we don't 
> > >> add description for arguments, who can know what to pass to the 
> > >> methods
> > exactly
> > >> by reading the javadoc? Third, if we don't add description for 
> > >> return value, how can customers understand the returning stuff by 
> > >> reading the javadoc? As a whole, such javadoc should be erased 
> > >> because we are not adding javadoc just for "adding", but for 
> > >> users or even code writers themselves to understand code more clearly.
> > >>
> > >> 4. Wrong upper case javadoc tag found. E.g. "@since" should be 
> > >> written
> > in
> > >> all lowercase, but found as "@Since", which make the javadoc 
> > >> generator complain with errors.
> > >>
> > >> So far, I've deployed eagle 0.5.0-incubating-snapshot to apache 
> > >> maven snapshot repository ( 
> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> snapshots/org/apache/eagle/).
> > >> It currently doesn't include javadoc jars because there were too 
> > >> many javadoc error occurring while I was building the artifacts. 
> > >> When I
> > erased
> > >> incorrect ones in a sub model, that model ran pass and the next 
> > >> model
> in
> > >> building chain raised up to complain. Therefore, it may cost me 
> > >> more
> > time
> > >> to erase all the faulty javadoc until all models are built
> successfully.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to