Bug 189459

Summary:

[1.6][compiler] Doc comment support should not be systematically activated while processing annotations

Product:

[Eclipse Project] JDT

Reporter:

Frederic Fusier <frederic_fusier>

Component:

Core

Assignee:

Satyam Kandula <satyam.kandula>

Status:

VERIFIED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

eclipse, jarthana, Olivier_Thomann, paul.fullbright, philippe_mulet

Version:

3.3

Flags:

Olivier_Thomann: review+

Target Milestone:

3.7 M6

Hardware:

OS:

Windows XP

Whiteboard:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Proposed patch	satyam.kandula: review?

Description Frederic Fusier

2007-05-28 11:34:07 EDT

Follow-up of bug 188656. The fix for this bug activates doc comment support as soon as the compliance is 1.6 and 'proc:none' wasn't specified in the command line. In all other cases, this results to parse the javadoc comment...

In fact, we can improve this fix by activating javadoc comment support only if the processors manager really found annotations processors. In case not, this support is definitely not necessary and should not be activated.

Comment 1 Olivier Thomann

2010-10-29 13:57:41 EDT

Satyam, you might want to change this with your APT changes. APT only requires the positions of the javadoc comments. The javadoc comments don't need to be resolved.

Comment 2 Satyam Kandula

2011-01-31 23:57:21 EST

*** Bug 316782 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Satyam Kandula

2011-02-01 09:44:57 EST

Created attachment 188049 [details]
Proposed patch

Made such that javadoc is not processed and not even resolved if javadoc is not enabled but annotation processing flag is set.

Comment 4 Satyam Kandula

2011-02-01 09:47:37 EST

Olivier, Can you please review this patch? This doesn't handle bug 212207, but I guess any solution we come over there can be easily applied on top of this.

Comment 5 Olivier Thomann

2011-02-07 12:28:36 EST

Looks ok to me.

Comment 6 Walter Harley

2011-02-07 12:58:12 EST

+1

Comment 7 Satyam Kandula

2011-02-08 00:17:58 EST

Thanks Olivier and Walter for the Review.
Released on HEAD

Comment 8 Satyam Kandula

2011-02-27 23:27:09 EST

*** Bug 219820 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 Jay Arthanareeswaran

2011-03-08 05:36:24 EST

Verified for 3.7M6 using build I20110301-1537.