Priya,
Nearly there: minor comments below:
In this file:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.01/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/AbstractModuleIndexWriter.java.sdiff.html
you have not removed the empty list that I reported in the previous
review. Look at lines 223-224 in the new code.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Epmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.01/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/AbstractPackageIndexWriter.java.sdiff.html
line 112, You've deleted the @param documentation, but not the actual
parameter in the signature!
General comment: IndexRedirectWriter: this class needs a better
explanatory comment. I figured out why we still need it, but it took a
while. I'll file a separate bug to improve the comment.
ModuleIndexWriter, PackageIndexWriter
I think the main comment may be wrong ... the filename is always
"index.html", isn't it, not "overview-summary.html"
test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/WindowTitles/WindowTitles.java.
line 57 .... previously, the arguments were vertically aligned. The edit
broke the alignment.
-- Jon
On 03/15/2019 02:25 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi Jon,
I have updated the webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.01/
changeset id of the tip - 54142:6ab293f66cae
Thanks,
Priya
On 3/15/2019 4:33 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Priya,
I'm trying to look at these changes with an IDE, which requires a
repo. The patch in the webrev does not apply cleanly to the current
tip of the jdk/jdk repo.
Can you either post an updated webrev, or just post the changeset id
of the rip of your repo, so that I can "hg update" my repo so that
the patch will apply cleanly.
-- Jon
On 03/11/2019 06:28 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the review.
I have updated the webrev.
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.01/
Reg ModuleIndexWriter, old lines 98-106:
After removing frames, the methods AllClassesLink/AllModulesLink
have been removed as they implemented in frame classes.
With out these, we are just creating empty list. That's the reason
for deleting these lines.
This change is similar to AbstractModuleIndexWriter lines old lines
251-258, in the updated webrev, i have removed the creation of empty
list.
Thanks,
Priya
On 3/9/2019 6:48 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 03/08/2019 03:12 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi,
Kindly review the changes for removal of frames.
Removed the script for setting window title which was needed for
frames and also the boolean includeScript,
which was false for overview-frame,allclasses-frame and
package-frame and true for all other cases.
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215599
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.00/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215603
Thanks,
Priya
AbstractModuleIndexWriter.java
lines 243,244
You're creating an empty list and adding it to the header.
I think you can delete these lines.
AbstractPackageIndexWriter.java
line 43: bad grammar in comment "sub-classed by to"
IndexRedirectWriter
line 81: it's an unrelated change, but looks OK
ModuleIndexWriter
old lines 98-106: please explain why you have deleted these lines
they don't look immediately related to the Frames support.
standard.properties
The message needs fixing. The user has asked for "no frames"
and the message is about "frames": i.e. it's not directly related
to what the user did. I suggest:
445 doclet.NoFrames_specified=\
446 The --no-frames option is no longer required and may be removed\n
447 in a future release.
DocPaths.java
I'm slightly surprised there were quite so many variants of
allclasses*.html files!
TestGeneratedBY.java
You've commented out a test ...
-- Jon
