Bug 215193 - [javadoc] {@link} to member type not reported as warning
Summary: [javadoc] {@link} to member type not reported as warning
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 222188
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Eric Jodet CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-01-14 05:55 EST by Dani Megert CLA
Modified: 2008-06-16 11:12 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dani Megert CLA 2008-01-14 05:55:10 EST
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #176027 +++

see bug 175839.

Build ID: I20070220-1330

Steps To Reproduce:
1. Set compiler default source level to 1.4 (or 1.5 or 1.6)
2. Enable Pref / Java / Compiler / Javadoc / Report errors in tags
3. Create package and file:

package otherpkg;

public class C {
        public static class Inner { }
}

4. Create second package and file to show the problem:

package somepkg;

import otherpkg.C;

/**
 * {@link C.Inner} -- error/warning - Tag @link: reference not found: C.Inner
 */
public class MemberTypeDocTest {
      void m() { }
}


NOTE: this is very similar to bug 176027 (just importing C instead of C.Inner). The biggest difference is that this seems to fail in all javadoc tool versions.
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2008-01-14 05:56:26 EST
>Build ID: I20070220-1330
Build id is I20080108-1320.

In contrast to the javadoc tool Eclipse doesn't show that warning.
Comment 2 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-01-14 13:43:28 EST
To be investigated
Comment 3 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-06-04 10:30:29 EDT
I think bug 222188 and this one are the same bug: references to inner types defined in other packages should be fully qualified.

As a test, I applied the patch I posted for bug 222188 and this made the expected warning to be raised.

Dani, would you agree to close this one as a dup of bug 222188 (though I agree this should be the opposite)?
Comment 4 Dani Megert CLA 2008-06-16 11:12:33 EDT
I agree.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 222188 ***