On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 20:01:37 GMT, Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This rights the wrongs of JDK-8008768. For more information, see the >> respective CSR. > > Pavel Rappo has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 13 commits: > > - [feedback] revert some tests > > This addresses Jon's fair concerns on me aggressively removing some > test cases, that could still work. > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk19/master' into 8287379 > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk19/master' into 8287379 > - feedback: make method positive > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk19/master' into 8287379 > - Update DocTest > > 1. Removes @inheritDoc from these type of declarations: > * class and interface > * constructor > 2. Removes empty declarations. > 3. Updates @apiNote, @implSpec and @implNote definitions to match those > of JDK API. > 4. Fixes a few typos. > - Add tests > - Disallow @inheritDoc in type declarations > > This undoes undocumented changes introduced by 8008768. > - Do not warn on inline misuse > > The type of a declaration (module, class or interface, constructor, > method, etc.) for which a tag is applicable, is orthogonal to the type > of the tag (inline, block, bimodal). > > The code up the stack knows which type of tags it has collected. If > those tags are of type other than expected, it's a programming error. > - Doclint shouldn't warn on inapplicable conditions > > overview.html and doc-files/**/*.html files cannot have > a main description or be an empty comment. At the very least, > the check for being "an empty comment" for such files cannot be > performed by checking if the files contain any block tags. Block tags > are applicable to a program element, which those files are not. > - ... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk19/compare/3212dc9c...7d540c4e Marked as reviewed by jjg (Reviewer). test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/InheritDocForUserTags/DocTest.java line 57: > 55: // javadoc does not report an exit code for an internal exception > (!) > 56: // so monitor stderr for stack dumps. > 57: checkOutput(Output.STDERR, false, "at com.sun"); This is a general comment for a followup discussion and future work. Should we have a standard default-on check in `JavadocTester` for "no stack traces"? That is, the equivalent of this line here. We could model such a check on `checkLinks` or `checkAccessibility` such that a hypothetical `checkNoCrashes` could be disabled in the (rare?) cases that they might be expected. (For example, checking the tool/doclet behavior when a crash does occur.) ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk19/pull/54
