[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Konrad Windszus updated JCR-3701:
---------------------------------
Description:
There is an empty paragraph in the javadoc for the field PARAM_DEFAULT_DEPTH
(https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to209).
This leads to the part following after that (the note about changing the
default depth having an influence on retrieving users as well) not being
rendered for the HTML avadoc (visible at
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/2.4/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.html).
The javadoc was adjusted with this change:
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/jackrabbit?cs=794702 (in the context
of JCR-2199).
Please fix the javadoc to make that important note appear in for the field as
well as in the description of the class
(https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to141).
Please also explain a littlebit, why that field has not only an influence on
storing new users, because for reading user nodes the UUID of the node is used
and the path where the node is actually stored should be irrelevant.
was:
There is an empty paragraph in the javadoc for the field PARAM_DEFAULT_DEPTH
(https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to209).
This leads to the part following after that (the note about changing the
default depth having an influence on retrieving users as well) not being
rendered for the javadoc (visible at
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/2.4/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.html).
The javadoc was adjusted with this change:
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/jackrabbit?cs=794702 (in the context
of JCR-2199).
Please fix the javadoc to make that important note appear in for the field as
well as in the description of the class
(https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to141).
Please also explain a littlebit, why that field has not only an influence on
storing new users, because for reading user nodes the UUID of the node is used
and the path where the node is actually stored should be irrelevant.
> Empty p tag in javadoc of UserManagerImpl leads to missing note in HTML output
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-3701
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3701
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: jackrabbit-core, security
> Affects Versions: 2.7.3
> Reporter: Konrad Windszus
>
> There is an empty paragraph in the javadoc for the field PARAM_DEFAULT_DEPTH
> (https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to209).
> This leads to the part following after that (the note about changing the
> default depth having an influence on retrieving users as well) not being
> rendered for the HTML avadoc (visible at
> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/2.4/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.html).
>
> The javadoc was adjusted with this change:
> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/jackrabbit?cs=794702 (in the context
> of JCR-2199).
> Please fix the javadoc to make that important note appear in for the field as
> well as in the description of the class
> (https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/security/user/UserManagerImpl.java?r=1543443#to141).
> Please also explain a littlebit, why that field has not only an influence on
> storing new users, because for reading user nodes the UUID of the node is
> used and the path where the node is actually stored should be irrelevant.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
