On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 13:29:55 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review a change to fix the representation of array types as values of
> annotation elements in javadoc-generated documentation.
>
> The primary fix is to avoid generating duplicate `[]` brackets for array
> types, but there are a few secondary improvements:
>
> - When linking to a type, only use the type name as link label, appending
> the `.class` as plain text after the link
> - Support linking to the base type of array types, again appending the
> square brackets and `.class` after the link
> - Leave it to the `LinkFactory` code to decide whether to use the qualified
> or simple type name for a link (uses `isLinkable` instead of `isIncluded`)
>
> There already was some test code for the use of array types in annotation
> elements in `TestNewLanguageFeatures.java`, but it was disabled with a
> comment referring to another issue that has long been resolved.
Changes requested by prappo (Reviewer).
src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlDocletWriter.java
line 1890:
> 1888: return new TextBuilder(t.toString());
> 1889: }
> 1890: }.visit(t).add(".class");
I know that naming is hard, but consider renaming this or the outer `t` so they
don't name-clash. Given a parameter with the same name is also present in
`defaultAction`, I'd probably renamed the outer `t`. Renaming one parameter is
simpler than renaming two parameters.
test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testNewLanguageFeatures/TestNewLanguageFeatures.java
line 700:
> 698:
> 699: // XXX: Add array test case after this if fixed:
> 700: //5020899: Incorrect internal representation of class-valued
> annotation elements
Thanks for deleting this effective FIXME.
test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testNewLanguageFeatures/pkg1/B.java line 39:
> 37: sa = {"up", "down"},
> 38: primitiveClassTest = boolean.class,
> 39: arrayClassTest = String[][].class,
Update the copyright year in this file.
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15019#pullrequestreview-1545750651
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15019#discussion_r1273717883
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15019#discussion_r1273712054
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15019#discussion_r1273708848
