Hi,
Although I've not studied your emails in detail, it seems to me that
annotations should never be included in ids, and it is an error (bug) if
they are.
-- Jon
On 1/15/21 7:36 PM, - wrote:
For that bug, after another look, I think the problem lies in javadoc
not erasing type annotations for primitives when generating links.
I changed Daug.java to
public class Daug {
public void bark(@Cute("") int t, @Cute("a")
Comparable<@Cute("?") ? super @Cute("int") Integer> p2) {}
}
and the html link is now
<a href="#bark(@Cute(%22%22)int,java.lang.Comparable)">bark</a>
showing how the Comparable has been erased. Javadoc should do the same
to the int primitive.
Another interesting observation is that in the generated javadoc, Cute
annotation on int is not linked, while that on comparable is. It is like
(@Cute("") int t,
<a href="Cute.html" title="annotation in <Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("a")
java.lang.Comparable<<a href="Cute.html" title="annotation in
<Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("?") ? super <a href="Cute.html"
title="annotation in <Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("int")
java.lang.Integer> p2)</code>
That might be filed as a separate bug, I guess.
liangchenblue at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:15 PM - <liangchenb...@gmail.com
<mailto:liangchenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
I have a few pieces of notes after looking at javadoc stuff.
1. JDK-8077565 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077565>
is the same as JDK-8253700
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253700> and has been
addressed in commit 8cf8e46
<https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8cf8e463c623b3908befb0af289749b47a793267>.
It can be closed now.
2. When a method has type annotations, its html element id may be
broken. I request filing a bug so I can submit a fix. A minimal
example:
Cute.java
import java.lang.annotation.Documented;
import java.lang.annotation.ElementType;
import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;
import java.lang.annotation.Target;
@Documented
@Target(ElementType.TYPE_USE)
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public @interface Cute {
String value() default "";
}
Daug.java:
public class Daug {
public void bark(@Cute("") int t) {}
}
Build the javadoc for the two classes. Observe that in the method
details section, the id field of it is like
<section class="detail" id="bark(@Cute(" ")int)"="">
which is a map of
class -> detail
id -> "bark(@Cute("
")int)" -> ""
I suggest changing the id to that used in the method summary
section (already correct), like
"bark(@Cute(%22%3Cannotationcontent%3E%22)int)".
liangchenblue at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
