Bug 114338 - [javadoc] Reconciler reports wrong javadoc warning (missing return type)
Summary: [javadoc] Reconciler reports wrong javadoc warning (missing return type)
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 M4   Edit
Assignee: Frederic Fusier CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 115339 115483 115907 116442 118779 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-10-31 06:27 EST by Markus Keller CLA
Modified: 2005-12-13 10:43 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Markus Keller CLA 2005-10-31 06:27:40 EST
I20051025-0800

The reconciler reports a wrong warning "Javadoc: Missing return type
description" even though the description is there.

Steps:

- have p/A.java:

package p;
public class A {
	/**
	 * @return a
	 */
	boolean get() {
		return false;
	}
}

- set project-specific option for Java Compiler > Javadoc:
check all checkboxes, set all combos to 'Warning' and 'Private'

- open A.java and insert a space character somewhere
  => now, 'return' in '@return a' is marked with a warning

Saving the file makes the warning go away.
Comment 1 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-11-04 11:00:01 EST
Return statement was refreshed for JavadocParser but not for SourceJavadocParser.
Review all references to AbstractCommentParser.kind...

Fixed and release in HEAD.

Test case #testBug114338() added in ReconcilerTest.
Comment 2 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-11-07 11:38:05 EST
*** Bug 115339 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-11-08 10:23:16 EST
*** Bug 115483 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-11-11 05:59:24 EST
*** Bug 115907 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-11-15 10:36:59 EST
*** Bug 116442 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Martin Aeschlimann CLA 2005-12-01 10:54:59 EST
*** Bug 118779 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2005-12-13 10:43:40 EST
Verified for 3.2 M4 using build I20051212-0010