8016217: More javadoc warnings (original) (raw)

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Mon Jun 10 11:17:42 UTC 2013

I eyeballed the patch file. Looks fine to me.

It is really nice to have a tool to that operates on the actual source.

-Chris.

On 10/06/2013 11:31, Alan Bateman wrote:

About 8 months ago I tried an early build of doclint [1] and used it to fix up a bunch issues at the time [2]. It's been awhile, so I decided to try out the latest version to see how it has progressed. All I can say is "Yikes". The good news is that they reported against the original source and that makes it easy when compared to tools that validate the generated html. I decided to fix up a few issues, mostly syntax (escaping of > and < in_ _particular) and a few reference issues that were missed the last time_ _(or are new). There are thousands of other issues for anyone that wants_ _to jump in._ _I've put the webrev with the changes here:_ _http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8016217/webrev/_ _In total this fixes ~500 issues, although 270 of those were coming from_ _java.sql.DatabaseMetaData due to the number of un-escaped usages of_ _"=>". In many cases, the changes are simply to use {@code ..} or replace with {@code ...}. It is tempting to just do a global replace on existing usages (would fixing up content that is escaped of course). I've run specdiff on the before & after to check that I didn't mess anything up. One obvious difference is that code examples that use generics now have the type parameters going through to the generated javadoc. The webrev touches many areas but as the changes are trivial, I don't need a reviewer from every area. -Alan. [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/172 [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/39cbe256c3d1

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list