stevedlawrence commented on code in PR #1237:
URL: https://github.com/apache/daffodil/pull/1237#discussion_r1603800366


##########
build.sbt:
##########
@@ -246,7 +249,9 @@ lazy val commonSettings = Seq(
   sourceManaged := baseDirectory.value / "src_managed",
   resourceManaged := baseDirectory.value / "resource_managed",
   libraryDependencies ++= Dependencies.common,
-  testOptions += Tests.Argument(TestFrameworks.JUnit, "-q", "--verbosity=1")
+  testOptions += Tests.Argument(TestFrameworks.JUnit, "-q", "--verbosity=1"),
+  Compile / packageDoc / publishArtifact := false,
+  Dependencies.genjavadocVersion

Review Comment:
   This now results in a bunch of warnings like this:
   ```
   [warn] there are 20 keys that are not used by any other settings/tasks:
   [warn]  
   [warn] * daffodil / unidocGenjavadocVersion
   [warn]   +- /home/runner/work/daffodil/daffodil/project/Dependencies.scala:73
   ...
   ```
   
   I guess my idea of adding this globally wasn't a great idea. Maybe we just 
add
   ```scala
   .settings(Dependencies.genjavadocVersion)
   ```
   after we enable the JavadocPlugin for each project? Its a bit repetitive, 
but I personally find it a bit cleaner than the 
`withScalaDocConvertedToJavaDoc` function. But I don't feel strongly about it.



##########
project/Dependencies.scala:
##########
@@ -15,7 +15,9 @@
  * limitations under the License.
  */
 
-import sbt._
+import sbt.*
+import sbt.Def
+import sbtunidoc.GenJavadocPlugin.autoImport.unidocGenjavadocVersion

Review Comment:
   Do we actually nee these changes? We don't use `sbt.Def` in this class, and 
I think `unidocGenjavadocVersion` should be autoimported and not needed. And 
the `sbt.*` import isn't standard scala is it? This feels like an auto-importer 
gone wrong.



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to