fwienber opened a new pull request #35: [MJAVADOC-620] Do not ignore JARs w/o module info when building classpath URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-javadoc-plugin/pull/35 When `locationManager.resolvePaths()` processes JARs that do not define a module name, module-name-guessing is triggered. The last resort is to use the JAR's file name to derive a module name. The heuristic is to determine where a version number starts, for which the regex is used: `"-(\\d+(\\.|$))"` See [JavaDoc of ModuleFinder.of()](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/module/ModuleFinder.html#of(java.nio.file.Path...)). For the remaining prefix, all non-alphanumeric characters (this includes dashes) are replaced by dots. When splitting at the dots, every part must be a legal Java identifier. Now, when a Maven JAR uses the version `1-SNAPSHOT`, the JAR is named `<artifactId>-1-SNAPSHOT.jar`, so the version suffix is not recognized by the heuristic (the number is neither followed by a dot, nor is this the end of the file name without extension), so trying to guess the module name eventually fails with an error (FindException, "1" is not a valid Java identifier). There are other situations in which trying to derive module information from a JAR leads to errors, e.g. when the top-level package is used ("unnamed package not allowed in module"). The code in `maven-javadoc-plugin` checks all returned `classpath` elements whether they contain module information. Now, in the result returned by `locationManager.resolvePaths()`, all JARs for that no module information could be derived are not contained in `getClasspathElements()`, but only in `getPathExceptions()`. When a JAR path is mapped to a `FindException`, it does not make sense to look for module information, but it _does_ make sense to still add these JARs to the classpath. Ignoring them, as before, is what breaks backwards-compatibility with non-module JARs and causes bug [MJAVADOC-620](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MJAVADOC/issues/MJAVADOC-620). The fix is to add all such JARs without module information to the JavaDoc `classpath`. - [x] I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the [Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
