Bug 375746 - preferences control for whether "Invalid member type qualification" javadoc warning is reported
Summary: preferences control for whether "Invalid member type qualification" javadoc w...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.8   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: JDT-Core-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-30 13:03 EDT by Erik Hilsdale CLA
Modified: 2014-04-30 19:50 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Erik Hilsdale CLA 2012-03-30 13:03:52 EDT
Build Identifier: Version: 3.7.2 Build id: M20120208-0800

In Issue 371420 , Eclipse's javadoc handling was broken in order to make it bug compatible with javadoc.exe by reporting that 

  import package.TopLevelType;
  ...
  {@link TopLevelType.NestedType}

is ill-formed javadoc.

This is an enhancement request to allow users to determine whether they want bug-compatibility or spec-compatibility.

Rationale:

Much of the code I work with is not passed through javadoc.exe -- the javadoc
is primarily viewd via the internal-to-eclipse javadoc viewing tools, and
{@link} is valuable as instructions for F3 navigation.

The current situation only allows me four options when I want to {@link ...} to
nested types (or members of nested types)

(a) ignore the warning.  This makes the problems pane less useful to me as
there are tonnes of false positives.

(b) use the "doesn't contain" filter on the problems pane to suppress these. 
Unfortunately, I only get one filter, and I sometimes need that to suppress
deprecated warnings.

(c) don't validate tag arguments.  This leads to javadoc rot.

(d) fully qualify all such references.  This is weird, hard to explain to my
code reviewers, and not very readable.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=371420
Comment 1 Bruce Christensen CLA 2014-04-30 19:50:52 EDT
I ran into this today also. I'd love to be able to disable this. Adding a 50-character package prefix to a class name doesn't go well in code reviews.