On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:20:19 GMT, Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlIds.java >> line 567: >> >>> 565: var methods = >>> vmt.getVisibleMembers(VisibleMemberTable.Kind.METHODS); >>> 566: // for whatever reason annotation methods are not of >>> Kind.METHODS >>> 567: var otherMethods = >>> vmt.getVisibleMembers(VisibleMemberTable.Kind.ANNOTATION_TYPE_MEMBER); >> >> I'm surprised you need to worry about annotation type members here -- >> annotation types cannot have type arguments, and so the "simple" id should >> always be sufficient. > > True, type parameters are not an issue for annotation interface methods, > which [are not allowed to have any parameters][], type or otherwise. However, > the code that prints annotations for method signatures does not know that and > uses `forMember`, which is applicable to any executable member, of annotation > or otherwise. > > <img width="356" alt="a screenshot from the generated API Documentation for > testNewAndDeprecated" > src="https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/assets/32523691/fc808159-7f3f-4a2a-bb25-41474c3b5833";> > > In principle, I could remove that > `vmt.getVisibleMembers(VisibleMemberTable.Kind.ANNOTATION_TYPE_MEMBER)` and > the annotation member will be caught by the ["safety > net"](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18519/files#diff-22d9182196ae739a6de9c29801bb3ca788992b0cbf44564b2aeda2018a7b78e1R611-R621). > > Since we are here, there's a `forMember` overload used by > `AnnotationTypeMemberWriter`, I probably should remove it for consistency. > Thoughts? > > [are not allowed to have any parameters]: > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se22/html/jls-9.html#jls-9.6.1 If you use `forMember` on an `ExecutableElement` whose enclosing element is an annotation type interface, you know there cannot be any type parameters. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18519#discussion_r1552474952
