Community
Participate
Working Groups
N20080308-0100. This build has a Javadoc warning (see bug 222099). I would expect that JDT Core reported this but it doesn't. In a simple and similar example like this: package pack2; import pack.Test.Inner; abstract class X { Inner f; /** * See also {@link Test.Inner}. */ void f() { } } The warning is correctly issued.
Actually it can be reproduced with the simple example: 1. setup your project to use 1.4 2. paste this into Package Explorer ---- %< ----- package pack2; import pack.Test; class X { /** * See also {@link Test.Inner}. */ void f() { } } package pack; public class Test { public interface Inner { } } ---- %< ----- 3. setup to warn about invalid refs in Javadoc ==> no warning Create Javadoc using 1.4 or 1.5 ==> warning is issued. See also bug 96237 which seems to have fixed this when the stuff is in the same package.
sound similar (if not a real dup) to bug 221539
(In reply to comment #2) the test case in bug 221539 uses the same package, whereas the above test case uses 2 separate packages
Thanks Dani - I was staring at the Javadoc warning for a bit but didn't understand what was going on. Why is the Javadoc there in the first place?
> Why is the Javadoc there in the first place? Where?
For example, in the case you came up with in comment 0. Why is {@link Test.Inner} wrong? Should it be {@link Inner}? If we have two imports: import pack.Test; import pack.Test.Inner; - would {@link Test.Inner} still be wrong?
>For example, in the case you came up with in comment 0. Why is {@link >Test.Inner} wrong? Because for inner classes you either need to use full qualification or just the class itself, so yes {@link Inner} would work if there wasn't a bug in the 1.4 version of the javadoc tool :-( >If we have two imports: >import pack.Test; >import pack.Test.Inner; >- would {@link Test.Inner} still be wrong? Yep.
Thanks. Now it all makes sense to me again.
Just got another Eclipse build warning due to that (see bug 223083).
Created attachment 100910 [details] [proposed patch + test case] on top v865 - all jdt.core tests OK
Frederic, please review
(In reply to comment #10) same patch fixes bug 221539
This is not a regression comparing to 3.3.2. Will fix in 3.5.
Created attachment 101236 [details] [proposed patch + test case] on top v_866 previous patch was the wrong one
bug 215193 describes the exact same issue, and attached patch fixes it.
*** Bug 215193 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not sure I'll have enough time to review the proposed patch for 3.5...
See also bug 253750.
Satyam, please investigate, thanks!
Satyam, please investigate, thanks.
(In reply to comment #20) > Satyam, please investigate, thanks. Ping! This happened again.
(In reply to comment #21) I have the changes but unfortunately many tests needs to be updated -- Will fix those tests and create a patch.
Created attachment 189260 [details] Patch on HEAD Cleaned up the previous patch.
Jay, Can you please review the patch?
+1 for the patch.
Thanks Jay for the Review. Released the patch on HEAD.
Thanks! Verified in N20110228-2000.
Just for reference: According to http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/windows/javadoc.html#specifyingname , "{@link Test.Inner}" would be legal, but sadly, javadoc.exe has this long-standing bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4464323 Furthermore, "{@link Inner}" is incorrect according to the spec, but again, the javadoc.exe implementation is broken. I've filed bug 338809 for a quick fix for this (since users shouldn't have to do all this investigation just to add workarounds that violate the spec).
Verified for 3.7M6 using build I20110301-1537.
