Re: RFR [15] 8245981: Upgrade to jQuery 3.5.1

Hi Pavel, the changes look good and generated docs are working fine for me. Hannes > Am 04.06.2020 um 18:28 schrieb Pavel Rappo : > > Hello, > > Please review the change for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8245981 > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8245981/webrev.00/ > > This u

Re: RFR: 8246429: Javadoc comparators are not module-aware

Thanks! > Am 04.06.2020 um 16:51 schrieb Jonathan Gibbons : > > +1 > > I'll comment that the edits are inconsistent with using `{ }` around > single-statements after `if (...)`. Note sure if that was deliberate or not. I know. I usually try to be consistent with the style of the method I’m add

RFR: 8198705: Javadoc search needs a fix to handle duplicate package names in different modules

Please review: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198705 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8198705/webrev.00/ This adds code in AbstractIndexBuilder to detect search index items that display the same label in the search result. If there are, the module information is adde

Re: RFR: 8198705: Javadoc search needs a fix to handle duplicate package names in different modules

EditorContainer ... the method looks like a mistake: it is commented "do not use"! -- Jon On 6/5/20 9:13 AM, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: Please review: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198705 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8198705/webrev.00/ This adds code in Abstract

RFR: JDK-8246705: javadoc gives "misleading" and incomplete warning message.

Please review a small change to a poor warning message that is generated in unusual circumstances. The circumstances are caused by using --expand-requires and not having the source available for all the modules. * The message incorrectly uses the simple name of a module instead of the fully