Bug 84683 - [javadoc][options] Non-visible warning is not useful
Summary: [javadoc][options] Non-visible warning is not useful
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 53977
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.1 M3   Edit
Assignee: Frederic Fusier CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-02-08 09:32 EST by Martin Aeschlimann CLA
Modified: 2005-03-16 12:14 EST (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 Martin Aeschlimann CLA 2005-02-08 09:32:08 EST
20050208

This is a issue we already discussed, but after a long discussion with Dani I
decided to bring this up again:

The current implementation of 'report non-visible references' is not useful as
it does a 'access visibility validation', a test that is not known to the
Javadoc tool. Instead the Javadoc tool only cares about 'documentation
visibility': The setting that specifies how visible elements must be to have a
comment generated to the doc. 

package pack1;
/**
 * @see B#fooPriv()
 * @see B#fooPack()
 * @see B#fooProt()
 */
public class A {
}

package pack2;
public class B {
   private void fooPriv() {}
   void fooPack() {}
   protected void fooProt() {}
}

When creating Javadoc, you tell the tool which element to document. E.g. you
say, only document elements with visibiliy 'public'. The Javadoc preference page
should also have a field to allow to specify that visibility. All references
that go a field less visible than that should get a warning as they are
references to comments that are not going to be in the documentation.

The current 'visibility' check does something else: All 3 see tags are marked as
'non-visible'. The implementation checks if class A could see (= call) fooProt
of B. Of course it can't, B is not in a hierarchy of A. But for documentation
reasons that does not matter. Maybe the comment of fooProt() has an important
note about A.
Comment 1 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-03-14 13:45:37 EST
I'll try to put this one for M6...
Comment 2 Frederic Fusier CLA 2005-03-16 12:14:03 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 53977 ***