[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #9 from Stefan Bodewig --- merged, thank you. Plese note that we haven't planned any 1.9.x release at the moment, so it may take some time until the fix becomes available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 Christopher Alexander Chavez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrischa...@gmx.us -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Alexander Chavez --- This issue also affects ant 1.9.16. Can the fix be backported? See https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/190 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 Jaikiran Pai changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |1.10.8 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jaikiran Pai --- Hello Alexander, thank you very much for the detail about the change that caused this regression. I hadn't previously looked at our build.xml history to figure this out. Thanks to your input, I've now undone that change and pushed a commit to master branch upstream and credited you for this fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Grund --- https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224266 has come to a resolution that this is NOT a bug in javadoc but intended and specified behavior. The issue in ant surfaced in 1.10.2 due to the removal of the `withDoclint` parameter and hence not passing `additionalparam="-Xdoclint:none"` to the javadoc target. Hence a fix is to revert that change and build without doclint by default. See also https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56750209/how-to-successfully-build-ant-source-code/59681717#59681717 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 Alexander Grund changed: What|Removed |Added Version|1.10.6 |1.10.2 Severity|normal |regression Priority|P2 |P4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #5 from Jaikiran Pai --- This has now been acknowledged[1] as a bug in the JDK's javadoc tool itself and is being tracked in the JDK bug tracker at [2]. [1] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/2019-May/001068.html [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8224266 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #4 from Mikhail T. --- (In reply to Jaikiran Pai from comment #3) > But before getting to any of that Let's implement the fixes in parallel with -- rather than after -- figuring out, why JDK is the way it is... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #3 from Jaikiran Pai --- What I meant in my previous reply was that, based on the documentation of the javadoc tool shipped in the JDK (the one which we use in that task), I don't expect that tool to fail with an error in first place for such references and thus the failonerror attribute of that task shouldn't play a role. I agree ultimately this might (and probably will) need a change to our build.xml file to either allow configuring the failonerror value for this target or make some kind of path exclusions or maybe even pass along a -Xdoclint option to that task to use something like "-Xdoclint:all,-reference". But beforing getting to any of that, I personally am interested in understanding why the JDK shipped javadoc tool is failing in first place. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #2 from Mikhail T. --- (In reply to Jaikiran Pai from comment #1) > However, I'm unsure why the javadoc tools errors out in such cases It errors out because of the explicit "failonerror=true" in the element :) The quick-dirty workaround is to simply flip the above setting to false -- as I'm already doing in my update to FreeBSD port devel/apache-ant (see https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237913) The proper fix, I guess, is to painstakingly exclude the sources dependent on the missing optional dependencies from Javadoc as they are already excluded from compilation... Then the failonerror can be proudly set back to true again... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 63438] javadoc-target fails when any OPTIONAL dependencies are missing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438 --- Comment #1 from Jaikiran Pai --- I was able to reproduce this. The javadoc tool seems to error out and exit with a non-zero exit code when it cannot resolve a "reference". You can, in fact, find 26 "reference not found" errors which match with the final "26 errors" summary message in that log you attached. These references are mostly of the form @throws JSchException, @see and such. It's understandable why those references aren't found. However, I'm unsure why the javadoc tools errors out in such cases and thus contradicting with what it says on it's documentation page[1] for Java 1.8 (the version you are using): "Reports warnings for bad references... ... Messages may be either warnings or errors, depending on their severity and the likelihood to cause an error if the generated documentation were run through a validator. For example, bad references or missing Javadoc comments do not cause the javadoc command to generate invalid HTML, so these issues are reported as warnings." I've asked for clarification about this on the openjdk javadoc-dev mailing list and will decide how we can proceed with this one, once we get clarity on the matter. [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/tools/unix/javadoc.html#CHDCIBFC -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
