On 6/24/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
On 6/24/13 10:51 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 6/21/2013 6:58 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
After learning that javadoc is now capable of properly formatting the
"<pre>{@code ...}</pre>" construct, I have updated the changeset for
java.security.cert. Please review instead:
Webrevs --
- java.security.cert (updated):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.01/
- java.security.spec (no change):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/
I've looked over both patches and they look fine.
However, as a follow-up, please also expand the conversion to include
mapping "<tt>foo</tt>" => "{@code foo}".
Thanks. I can make those changes, but are you suggesting that I add
them to this changeset or that I do that separately?
For review purposes, I'd like to see them separately in some fashion,
even if it was produced by diffing the patch files.
Note that this change does visibly change the generated javadoc, as
reported by specdiff. In particular, the change to <pre>{@code
...}</pre> in the javadoc for the
X509Extension.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs() method now allows the
generated HTML to correctly display the line:
Set<String> nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
which was previously (incorrectly) displayed as
Set nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
when the text "<String>" was still enclosed within
"<pre><code>...</code></pre>".
Running specdiff is a good double-check in this situation.
Should the scripts you are using here to placed somewhere in the JDK
repo or in the code tools project?
I'm not sure that I follow. Are you requesting that I include
somewhere in the repo the line of Perl that I ran? (It was used to
make most, but not all of these changes.) If so, where would be the
most appropriate place to add that?
If it is a one-liner, it could be included in the summary line of the
commit message or as a comment in the bug. If it is more substantive
(since we will be rolling out this change across the JDK libraries),
having the command in a known-location would be helpful. Especially, if
a check for this pattern is built into future code-quality checks.
-Joe
Thanks,
Jason
Thanks,
-Joe
Thanks,
Jason
The files that have been updated
On 6/21/13 5:47 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
Joe, all,
Could I please get a review of the following changes?
These changesets convert the <code>...</code> javadoc tags to {@code
...} as part of an overall effort to clean up doclint warnings.
Webrevs --
- java.security.cert:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.00/
- java.security.spec:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/
specdiff reported no changes in the generated docs.
More of these to come.
Thanks,
Jason
