On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:12:19 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbena...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this small update to make the test more robust, the test did >> not always check links to other files if they did not contain a fragment or >> a `#`symbol. >> >> I'd like to add that the original >> [doccheck](https://github.com/openjdk/doccheck) also didn't pick up on these >> missing files when I ran it. >> >> TIA > > Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains five additional > commits since the last revision: > > - improve based on feedback > - Merge branch 'master' into update-link-checker > - Merge branch 'master' into update-link-checker > - Merge branch 'master' into update-link-checker > - update link checker to verify that files exist test/docs/jdk/javadoc/doccheck/doccheckutils/checkers/LinkChecker.java line 223: > 221: @Override > 222: public boolean isOK() { > 223: return log.noErrors() && (missingFiles == 0); In method `reportMissingFile` where `missingFiles` is increased an error is also logged, so I'm wondering is the `missingFiles` check needed here? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23441#discussion_r2128409772
