Bug 132430 - [1.5][javadoc] Unwanted missing tag warning for overridden method with parameter containing type variable
Summary: [1.5][javadoc] Unwanted missing tag warning for overridden method with parame...
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2.1   Edit
Assignee: Frederic Fusier CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-03-17 21:19 EST by John P. A. Verhaeg CLA
Modified: 2006-09-11 12:41 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
Proposed patch (5.23 KB, patch)
2006-05-16 08:47 EDT, Frederic Fusier CLA
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John P. A. Verhaeg CLA 2006-03-17 21:19:22 EST
If I override the method below, which has a parameter signature that uses a type variable:

    public class AClass {

        /**
         * @param object
         */
        public void aMethod(E object) {
            ...
        }
    }

The following gets generated:

    /**
     * @see AClass#aMethod(java.lang.Object)
     */
    @Override
    public void aMethod(E object) {
        ...
    }

But if I have JavaDoc warnings enabled, this produces the warning:

    Javadoc: Missing tag for parameter object

I appears from looking at some other related defects that the JavaDoc processor requires raw types in the @see tags, but the compiler should at least be smart enough to not produce a warning for this situation.  I definitely don't want to have to re-specify the same parameters in the JavaDoc of the overriding (subclass) method that already exist in the overridden (superclass) method.
Comment 1 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-05-16 08:47:08 EDT
Candidate for 3.2.1
Comment 2 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-05-16 08:47:53 EDT
Created attachment 41580 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment 3 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-05-16 09:06:46 EDT
Released in TARGET_321 stream.
Comment 4 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-06-12 05:15:08 EDT
Released for 3.2.1
Released for 3.3 M1 while merging TARGET_321 in HEAD
Comment 5 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-08-04 11:59:10 EDT
Verified for 3.3 M1 using build I20060804-0010.
Comment 6 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-09-11 12:09:00 EDT
No regression tests added for this fix?
Comment 7 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-09-11 12:12:22 EDT
Verified for 3.2.1 using build M20060908-1655.
Comment 8 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-09-11 12:41:14 EDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> No regression tests added for this fix?
> 
It's included in the patch: JavadocTest_1_5#testBug132430(). I should have said it more explicitely...