Bug 232944 - IMember#getJavadocRange() should end with "*/"
Summary: IMember#getJavadocRange() should end with "*/"
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.5 M1   Edit
Assignee: Jerome Lanneluc CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-05-20 08:24 EDT by Markus Keller CLA
Modified: 2008-09-30 05:22 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Proposed fix and regression test (2.84 KB, patch)
2008-05-20 11:05 EDT, Jerome Lanneluc 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 Markus Keller CLA 2008-05-20 08:24:04 EDT 
I20080516-1333

IMember#getJavadocRange() should end with "*/", not partial line delimiter.

Paste this to a workspace with Windows line delimiters:

package p;
class A{
    /**
     * swsw
     */
    void m(){
    }
}

=> IMember#getJavadocRange() on "m()" returns offset=26, length=26.
This is "/** {@inheritDoc}*/\r" (the Javadoc and '\r' at the end).
Comment 1 Markus Keller CLA 2008-05-20 08:29:57 EDT 
It's even worse: The range always includes 1 character too much, e.g here...

/** X */class A {}

... the Javadoc range is "/** X */c".
Comment 2 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2008-05-20 10:48:53 EDT 
Just verified that the problem existed in 3.3.2.
Comment 3 Olivier Thomann CLA 2008-05-20 10:54:54 EDT 
I am surprised that this has not been found earlier as I imagine some weird bugs when using ast rewrite.
Comment 4 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2008-05-20 11:05:20 EDT 
Created attachment 101061 [details]
Proposed fix and regression test
Comment 5 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2008-06-23 11:30:02 EDT 
Fix and test released for 3.5M1
Comment 6 Olivier Thomann CLA 2008-08-06 13:58:13 EDT 
Verified for 3.5M1 using I20080805-1307
Comment 7 Gunnar Wagenknecht CLA 2008-09-30 05:22:10 EDT 
(In reply to comment #3)
> I am surprised that this has not been found earlier as I imagine some weird
> bugs when using ast rewrite.

Don't know why I didn't reported this earlier. Maybe I didn't recognize because of the line ending. Thus, I thought it's normal. But I paid my penalty today because my code got broken by this fix. ;)

http://code.google.com/p/gwt-tooling/source/detail?r=62