From:
aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Harley1
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 1:39 PM
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc
update
> George:
your suggestion of relativizing links is a good one. However, the fix for
that not only needs to check what package path it’s relativizing,
> but also where the type it is linking from is in the
folder hierarchy (since the HREF base is taken as the current file you’re in,
not the file that you’re pointing to).
Yes,
indeed. Have another look at the patch I sent last Thursday (8th) : the
relativizing is being done based on the package path of the "linking
from" type.
> But the key thing for this release is that the links
work.
A
couple of points :-
1.
For me links do *not* work on Windows using the Mozilla or Opera browsers. I
would also hazard that links will be broken on the Unix platforms as well with
Mozilla and Opera. What browsers/platforms did you use to test that the links
work ?
2.
The current version of the link-setting code in CVS HEAD uses the java.io.File
method getAbsolutePath() to set the "advises:" and "advised
by:" links. As well as breaking the links for non-IE browsers (see point 1
above) this means that the resulting HTML will be broken the moment it is
zipped up and moved around to another destination (e.g. like the AspectJ API Javadoc
is).
I
will resubmit last Thursday's patch to you off-list (I think everyone else must
be sick to death of this discussion by now). It will be in a slightly different
form as the content of CVS HEAD has changed since then.
Hope
this helps,
George
________________________________________
George C. Harley
"Mik Kersten"
<beatmik@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/04/2004
01:06
Please
respond to
aspectj-dev
|
|
To
|
<aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
|
|
I’ve added Jan’s
patterns to ajdoc’s test suite, and generating documentation for those works
now. I didn’t do a close inspection, but it looks right and links work.
The main fix needed to get that going was that ajdoc depended on packages
names not ending with “.java”, which the pattern packages do. Note that
the test case uses the patterns out of docs/sandbox/ubc-design-patterns, which
is kinda odd, but probably better than duplicating all those dozens of source
files in CVS.
I fixed the following bugs
57780: ajdoc package summary should not show synthetic information
57773: ajdoc crash
Ron: all of the atrack documentation and links work for me now, and
all your reports should be fixed, could you verify? Thanks again for the
thorough testing—it has made a huge difference for getting the quality up
before others try it.
George: your suggestion of relativizing links is a good one.
However, the fix for that not only needs to check what package path it’s
relativizing, but also where the type it is linking from is in the folder
hierarchy (since the HREF base is taken as the current file you’re in, not the
file that you’re pointing to). I’m out of time on ajdoc (have spent 3
full days on it since the weekend--that’s 2 more than I had ;). But the
key thing for this release is that the links work. The original ajdoc
didn’t relativize, and so I’ve added that as an enhancement request (57974). If you decide to do it, make sure that the
testdata/coverage/doc documentation generated by running CoverageTestCase all
works—it has the various variations of package/file/advice. Btw, I
cleaned up the link generating code so that’s much more simple. I also
addressed the other part of the problem that you were seeing—the code
generation was not producing deeper than one level of type nesting properly,
which is fixed and added to the coverage now.
Mik
From:
aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mik Kersten
Sent: Wednesday,
April 07, 2004
10:27 PM
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
Ron: thanks for all the great bug reports. I should have time to
get through most of them first thing tomorrow. I downloaded atrack and am
testing against it.
George, Andy: the relativization
stuff is a good idea, but the latest patch is broken too. The problem with
relativizing this way is that the links are dependent on how deep you are in
the folder hierarchy. I’m going to fix that tomorrow, and expand the
CoverageTestCase to include the various permutations of navigation that need to
work. If you find that after my fixes some example you have doesn’t work
please extend that test’s testdata. From this point on any changes to
link generation should be manually checked (i.e. every link in
CoverageTestCase’s generated documentation should work). The manual checking
is lame, but automating will take some time. Running a link checker on it
would be a good first pass…
Mik
From:
aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Bodkin
Sent: Wednesday,
April 07, 2004
10:09 AM
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
ajdoc
is a lot closer to building aTrack now (thanks Mik!). I think I'm now running
into the same issue George ran into
with inner types, except that it causes a stack trace (probably because this is
a doubly inner type!). Per Mik's request I've submitted a bugzilla report: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=57773
Ron
p.s.
I'd suggest adding ajdoc and ajbrowser as components (as well as a development
version) to Bugzilla.
------------Original
Message------------
From:
George Harley1 <GHARLEY@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
Wed, Apr-7-2004 9:20 AM
Subject:
RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
Hi Mik,
> I had to roll back some of Andy's
fix to broken links:
> getRelativeComponent didn't work properly for internal anchor links
(..html#<mumble>).
When I did a re-spin earlier today I found that ajdoc was producing HTML with
broken links between advice in package A and advised members of types in
package B.
Links between advice and advised types in the same package were OK.
The links to inner types were broken as well and the displayed text string for
the links were also incorrect (e.g, if linking to
packagefoo.ParentType.InnerType.membermethod() the visible text said it was
linking to packagefoo.InnerType.membermethod()).
I sent a patch to Andy earlier. Let's
see how it fares in the build.
Bye for now,
George
________________________________________
George C. Harley
"Mik Kersten"
<beatmik@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/04/2004 16:31
Please respond
to
aspectj-dev
|
|
To
|
<aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
|
|
Based on Ron's feedback from running
ajdoc on aTrack I've made the following
enhancements and a bug fix for dealing with declare forms. Ron: please
Bugzilla so that this stuff gets recorded. All: use the new -XajdocDebug
flag to send offending generated source files along with bug reports.
- Added support for 1.4 sources (use "-source 1.4" option)
- Made output class files go to documentation directory (-d) rather than
source directory.
- Added "-XajdocDebug" option that will keep the source files
generated from
the ASM around in order to help people send better bug reports.
- Any declare forms that ajdoc doesn't know how to generate docs for get
printed to the console and indicated as a limitation.
I also extended test coverage to declare forms and added proper clearing of
state for multiple invocations from test cases.
Mik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mik
Kersten
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:20 PM
> To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
>
> I just committed the updates to ajdoc needed for 1.2. In a nutshell
it's
> moved forward a ways from the previous ajdoc:
> - AJDT integration works
> - generates documentation for all the AspectJ modules
> - works on 1.3 and 1.4
> - comments and Javadoc tags are properly preserved and resolved
>
> Note that the hope is still for "declare" documentation to come
in the
> form
> of a contribution.
>
> Getting it to work for our tree involved a bunch of bug fixes to deal with
> things like anonymous types. To run from our tree in bootstrap mode
use
> something like the attached batch script. To run from AJDT point
Eclipse
> at
> this command under the "Project -> Generate Javadoc" menu.
End users will
> be able to point at the "<aj-install-dir>/bin/ajdoc.bat".
>
> I had to roll back some of Andy's
fix to broken links:
> getRelativeComponent
> didn't work properly for internal anchor links (..html#<mumble>).
Andy,
> could you check this against the current thing against whatever was
> breaking
> for you, and ideally add that code patter to CoverageTestCase?
>
> I added -XjavadocsInModel to make the addition of Javadoc strings to the
> ASM
> only happen when request it (prevent bloat of the model with strings.
The
> running time of ajdoc is now dominated by the compilation time.
>
> I had to make a change to a test case that I'm not quite comfortable with.
> AsmBuilderTest.testNullHandlingOfVisit() now checks for an NPE instead of
> an
> EmptyStackException. I'm not sure how the original could have worked
in
> the
> absence of the handle cache.
>
> Mik
>
> --
> http://kerstens.org/mik
_______________________________________________
aspectj-dev mailing list
aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev