On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 3:03 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 12/01/2023 13:41, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 1:19 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> I tried switching the CI over to use Java 17 last night. This exposed an > >> unexpected Javadoc behaviour that is currently breaking the 9.0.x and > >> 8.5.x builds. > >> > >> Ant is configured to run Javadoc with failonwarning="true" > >> > >> When running the Javadoc task with Java 17: > >> > >> - if source="11" (Tomcat 10.1.x and 11.0.x) no warnings are generated > >> regarding SecurityManager use > >> > >> - if source="8" (Tomcat 9.0.x) warnings are generated for > >> SecurityManager use > >> > >> - if source="7" (Tomcat 8.5.x) warnings are generated for > >> SecurityManager use > >> > >> I don't understand why the warning generation is only generated for > >> older source values. It would make more sense to me if it were only > >> generated for newer values. > > > > Yes, ok, that looks very odd ... > > > >> Possible options: > >> - only use Java 17 for 11.0.x builds > >> - use failonwarning="false" > > > > Yes please. If you remember, I sent an update earlier on Javadoc 18+. > > There will now be some warnings that will make it counterproductive > > for us (in particular, having to have an empty constructor on > > everything just so that it can be javadoc-ed). We should keep the > > setting around however to see how these things evolve, maybe it would > > be improved/fixed eventually ... > > Ah yes. I remember that now. I'll parameterise the setting and default > it to false. Early indications are that the CheckStyle checks are more > useful anyway. They have already uncovered a bunch of issues. Some are > cosmetic but others are more significant such as whole sets of constants > having the wrong descriptions.
Actually this javadoc validation through checkstyle looks better indeed. It's nice you were able to find these options, I had no idea it existed. Rémy > Mark > > > > > Rémy > > > >> - something else > >> > >> I'll switch the CI system back to Java 11 while we discuss options. I > >> also plan to look at CheckStyle options for Javadoc validation to see if > >> they could be an alternative approach if we use failonwarning="false" > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > > >> Mark > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
