Summary: | [javadoc][assist] Type parameters should not be proposed while completing in @link or @see reference | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Ed Merks <Ed.Merks> | ||||||
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Eric Jodet <eric_jodet> | ||||||
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||||
Priority: | P3 | Keywords: | contributed | ||||||
Version: | 3.3 | Flags: | frederic_fusier:
review+
|
||||||
Target Milestone: | 3.3 RC1 | ||||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Ed Merks
2007-05-04 12:14:25 EDT
Javadoc warnings are set by the compiler. Eric, can you investigate? (In reply to comment #2) (sorry for the late answer - either I missed the bugzilla notification or did not receive it) We currently behave as Javadoc which rejects the {@link X} syntax: warning - Tag @link: reference not found: X So, assuming this is a CA issue, where CA should not include X in the proposals list. Trying to investigate CA. So, we can fix the CA behavior but it definitely sounds like EMF should not generate such invalid @link reference... Not that javadoc tool currently do not produce any no error for the following syntax: {@link <X>}. But it seems to be a side effect of bug http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6300302. So, we need to verify the new javadoc tool behavior when this bug will be fixed and modify our if necessary... Modify summary according to the real JDT/Core issue. Created attachment 67072 [details]
[patch]: proposed fix + test cases
Fix: filter type parameters when performing CA whithin a Javadoc
Added 2 test cases to JavadocBugsCompletionModelTest (testBug185576a and testBug185576b)
All JDT Tests completed OK
Frédéric: may you please review
(In reply to comment #7) > Created an attachment (id=67072) [details] > [patch]: proposed fix + test cases > > Fix: filter type parameters when performing CA whithin a Javadoc > Added 2 test cases to JavadocBugsCompletionModelTest (testBug185576a and > testBug185576b) > All JDT Tests completed OK > Frédéric: may you please review > First test looks suspicious... I would expect to have at least one proposal: test class itself (first proposal in the second test). Second test is not correct, class X should not be public as it is a secondary type (In reply to comment #9) > Second test is not correct, class X should not be public as it is a secondary > type > Forget this comment, I mixed parenthesis... It is correct (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Created an attachment (id=67072) [details] [details] > > [patch]: proposed fix + test cases > > > > Fix: filter type parameters when performing CA whithin a Javadoc > > Added 2 test cases to JavadocBugsCompletionModelTest (testBug185576a and > > testBug185576b) > > All JDT Tests completed OK > > Frédéric: may you please review > > > First test looks suspicious... I would expect to have at least one proposal: > test class itself (first proposal in the second test). --> same for me, the reason I implemented the second one :-) Created attachment 67098 [details]
[patch]: proposed fix + test cases
Following Frédéric review:
- fix is OK
- test case were modified to conform with expected behavior / result (Compiler Options 1.5, completion start position)
(All JDT UI tests also completed OK)
Patch is OK, only 2 minor issues: the 2 tests still have the ONLY_ prefix and there's an unnecessary change in AbstractJavadocCompletionModelTest... I'll fix these issues before releasing the patch. Patch released for 3.3 RC1 in HEAD stream (In reply to comment #13) sorry for the extra work - thanks for the review Verified for 3.3 RC1 using build I20070515-0010. |