Bug 210521 - [batch][compiler][options] -warn:allJavadoc -warn:-javadoc does not behave as documented
Summary: [batch][compiler][options] -warn:allJavadoc -warn:-javadoc does not behave as...
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: PC All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.4 M5   Edit
Assignee: Maxime Daniel CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 211588
Blocks: 168604
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2007-11-21 07:04 EST by Maxime Daniel CLA
Modified: 2008-02-04 09:00 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
kent_johnson: review+

Attachments
Fix proposal (2.37 KB, patch)
2008-01-15 03:19 EST, Maxime Daniel CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Maxime Daniel CLA 2007-11-21 07:04:00 EST 
Build id: I20071120-1300

According to the documentation,-warn:allJavadoc -warn:-javadoc should equate 'invalid or missing javadoc' minus 'invalid javadoc', resulting into 'missing javadoc'. Current behavior is no javadoc warning at all.
Entered inactive BatchCompilerTest#171.
Comment 1 Maxime Daniel CLA 2007-11-28 09:13:51 EST 
I'll fix that in 3.4 cycle, except if someone opposes to it.
Comment 2 Maxime Daniel CLA 2007-11-30 08:00:52 EST 
Reading the code, opened bug 211588 that complains about an undue interaction between -enableJavadoc and -warn:-javadoc/-warn:-allJavadoc. Not looked at its cure yet, but I'd rather get it out of the way before attempting to make progress on this one. (It may be that the semantics of the said options need to be refined; as far as I remember, -enableJavadoc's purpose is to cancel some warnings like 'unused parameter' as soon as the said parameter appears in an @param tag, the same for thrown exceptions, and maybe others; which is markedly different from the purpose of javadoc well-formedness checks, and should not interact with it).
Comment 3 Maxime Daniel CLA 2008-01-15 03:19:20 EST 
Created attachment 86915 [details]
Fix proposal
Comment 4 Maxime Daniel CLA 2008-01-15 04:27:51 EST 
Kent, would you please let me know what you think?
Comment 5 Maxime Daniel CLA 2008-01-23 01:50:50 EST 
Released for 3.4 M5
Comment 6 Maxime Daniel CLA 2008-01-29 04:39:11 EST 
Reintroduced the bug in HEAD.
Comment 7 Kent Johnson CLA 2008-01-29 10:00:01 EST 
Did you mean to reopen bug 210524 instead ?
Comment 8 Maxime Daniel CLA 2008-01-30 01:35:46 EST 
Ooops... Yes of course, thx for pointing at it.
Moving to FIXED again. No change on CVS.
Comment 9 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-02-04 09:00:37 EST 
Verified for 3.4M5 using build I20080204-0010