I wouldn't change the CheckStyle rules to ignore missing @params. Why? Because often you (well, probably not you, but someone else) changes a param name but forgets to change the corresponding JavaDoc. CheckStyle is a good way to warn you about this.
@returns are most of the time redundant since the method description usually already says something about what's returned. But even then, it might be useful to use a @return for exceptional paths, like "this method returns null if yadayada". You could change the checkstyle to only report a warning in such cases, instead of an error. This way, you get the desired warning effect, but the error is less annoying. Jan-Kees 2008/12/9 Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I would also prefer to change the checkstyle rules to ignore missing @param > and @return comments. > > Sometimes params really are obvious enough not to be documented, and in some > other cases it is better to document them as part of the main method > description rather than a separate tag. So blindly enforcing this check > doesn't seem helpful... > > > Simon Lessard wrote: >> >> To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, >> which >> is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't >> specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to match >> the official API or to make checkstyle happy? >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. Personally >>> I >>> would give higher priority to completed comments than checkstyle whining, >>> what you guys think about it? >>> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/JavaDoc-and-checkstyle-tp20803530p20911066.html > Sent from the My Faces - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
