On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:06:59 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review an update to the way that `javadoc` handles the default legal > notices when generating docs. > > Previously, the default notices were taken from the module's `legal` > directory (`$JAVA_HOME/legal/jdk.javadoc`), but in some contexts, these files > were either symbolic links, or "descriptive links" -- text files containing > the words "Please see ..." -- on platforms that did not support symbolic > links. This was set up when using `jlink` to create the image. These > "descriptive links" were insufficient and inappropriate when used in a > generated docs bundle. > > The solution is to put a copy of the necessary files into the `jdk.javadoc` > module itself, at build time, as resource files, and to copy the files from > there instead of the module's `legal` directory. > > The set of files may vary depending on the kind of build, so care is taken to > not hardwire any specific list of names into the code. This means using > direct access to the underlying `jrt:` file system in order to determine the > set of legal notices that were set up at build time. > > The main test for legal notices is updated to verify that the words "Please > see ..." do not appear in any of the legal notices in a generated docs > bundle. There should be no other change to the set of legal notices. > > Two other tests were affected, because they provided their own minimal file > manager for use with `javadoc`, which relied on default methods in the file > manager API. These default methods are not sufficiently for handling paths in > non-default file systems, such as the `jrt:` file system used to access the > resources for the legal notices. The fix is just to override the necessary > methods. Apart from my and Erik's comment above, this looks fine. ------------- Marked as reviewed by ihse (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16370#pullrequestreview-1699692998
