On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:03:09 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review an update to "clean up" the direct use of HtmlTree >> constructors. >> >> Hitherto, many/most instances of `HtmlTree` were created by static factory >> methods. This update extends that convention. >> In most cases, this is by providing either simple no-arg factory methods or >> commonly used overloads that take an `HtmlId` or `HtmlStyle`. >> >> For some tags, (`br`, `hr`, `wbr`) this allows a singleton instance to be >> used. >> For some of the more obscure cases, a more generic `HtmlTree.of(HtmlTag)` >> method was used. >> >> Notes: >> * some significant block-level nodes, like `pre`, should probably always set >> a style, which could be enforced by suitable factory methods. That is >> currently not the case and could be a future cleanup. >> * some lists put the same style info on each list item, but might be better >> placed on the enclosing list. That could be a future cleanup > > src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/html/HtmlTree.java line > 389: > >> 387: } >> 388: >> 389: private static HtmlTree BR_INSTANCE = unmodifiableTree(HtmlTag.BR); > > There is a failing test in > `tools/javac/T8003967/DetectMutableStaticFields.java` because of this and the > other new static fields in `HtmlTree.java` not being `final`. The fields > should be declared as `final` anyway. Thanks; I guess that test is not in my standard set of tests for javadoc: mea culpa ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20778#discussion_r1742458285
