Hi Jon,

Inspections of the specdiff pointed out some missing links, in the previous revision.

In this iteration:
1. All missing links have been purged.
2. Fixing the above exposed issues relating to:
    a. handling of javafx properties
   b. missing ids in class-use and index
c. latent bug in the initialization of enum methods (value/valueof) comments
   d. made some adjustments to VisibleMemberMap and else where.
   e. add some more test use-cases.

My qparent:
47320[qparent]:47318,47319   8b09673f7ede   2017-10-06 20:54 +0000   lana


Full webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/webrev.02/

The delta webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/webrev.02/webrev.delta/

Specdiff
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/specdiff.out/overview-summary.html

API docs before:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/docs-before/api/overview-summary.html

API docs after:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/docs-after/api/overview-summary.html

Thanks
Kumar



Looks good to me.
Thanks for the delta-webrev.

-- Jon

On 10/03/2017 02:47 PM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Jon,

Thanks for the review, here is a new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/webrev.01/index.html
and a delta webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/webrev.01/webrev.delta/

HtmlConfiguration.java
Other public fields nearby have javadoc comments. It would be nice to follow the precedent. That being said, see comments for Utils.java:1568. This option would be better defined in
BaseConfiguration, not HtmlConfiguration.

Done


MethodWriterImpl.java 293
No need to assign null. Better to leave it empty (just "Content label;") so that the compiler
will verify it is asigned correctly in the statements that follow.

Done
MethodWriterImpl.java 295,296
I acknowledge you've followed the style of 300,301, but as a comment for general cleanup we should move away from legacy wrapper methods like configuration.getText in favor if the more explicit underlying call resources.getText. Or we could do that as part of a more
comprehensive cleanup.

Agreed. Will look into filing a bug.


resources/standard.properties:371
<...> is normally used for "fill in your own value here", as in <name>, <url>, etc
Use (...|...) to indicate alternatives. See line 389 for an example.
        (all|none|[-]<group>)

Done


MemberSumaryBuilder.java:485
Would be good to find a semantically helpful name instead of just inhmembers0.

Done,  renamed.


MemberSumaryBuilder.java:486,487,490,517
The short names are sort-of OK, but "members" should be capitalized. Also "class" in "inhclass"

Done, renamed.


MemberSumaryBuilder.java:497, 517
"footnote" is one word, not two. Also implies addSummaryFootnote

Fixed


Utils.java:1566
Since this is for methods only, it would be better if the parameter type was ExecutableElement, not Element. That should be OK with the callsite at MemberSummaryBuilder:498
Also, the name is not ideal. How about isSimpleOverride?

Done.


Utils.java:1568
The need to cast to HtmlConfiguration is a big indication that something is defined in the wrong place. summarizeOveriddenMethods is not HTML-specific and so should
be moved to BaseConfiguration.

Done.


VisibleMemberMap.java:241,316
Is the cast safe? You're iterating the members, but assuming the member is an
ExecutableElement

Yes the cast is safe!, what happens is the VMM is being built for each *kind* so in
the method getClassMembers, the member kinds are obtained on the
VMM kind.


Test files:
I assume I'm seeing false/duplicate output from the recent repo consolidation.
The first group of 3 test files should not be here.


Oops,  removed those extraneous files.


TestOverrideMethods.java
a) if you're going to have long strings in checkOutput, I suggest blank lines to help separate the
individual strings.
b) Long strings will be annoying to maintain going forward. Ideally, you should reduce the strings to the minimum necessary to focus on what you need to test, so that unrelated work on nearby
content doesn't break these tests.

Ok I narrowed down the focus, and eliminated the long lines.

Thanks

Kumar


-- Jon


On 09/21/2017 02:10 PM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello,

Please review for 8157000, please let me know if you have any
comments or ways I can improve it.

The "before and after" test without the flag is identical.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ksrini/8157000/webrev.00/index.html

Thanks
Kumar
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157000
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187386




Reply via email to