On Thu, 5 May 2022 14:43:37 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/tool/ElementsTable.java
>> line 1063:
>>
>>> 1061: if (enclosing != null) {
>>> 1062: return switch (enclosing.getKind()) {
>>> 1063: case CLASS, ENUM, RECORD, INTERFACE,
>>> ANNOTATION_TYPE -> visit(enclosing);
>>
>> Whoa! `RECORD` was missing. Does it make sense to accompany this PR with a
>> small test that crashes javadoc with a type nested in a non-included record?
>
> That's one possibility.
>
> Other possibilities:
> * a separate issue to audit use of ENUM to make sure there is matching RECORD
> entries, or
> * avoid using `default` to implicitly enable completeness checking, or
> * rewrite code to use `isDeclaredType`.
I've reviewed all uses of `ENUM`. All other places in javadoc look OK for
having a sibling case for `RECORD`.
Filed [JDK-8286205](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8286205) for more
tests.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8543
