From:
aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Harley1
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:46 AM
To: aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc
update
Hi Mik,
I was
out on vacation yesterday and so have just seen your note.
Bug
report 58439 opened. Patch will be added after
sending this note.
With
current version of the tool...
advises/advised
by HTML links in output from ajdoc/testdata/coverage are broken on my Mozilla
and Opera.
advises/advised
by HTML links in output from ajdoc/testdata/spacewar are broken on my Mozilla
and Opera.
advises/advised
by HTML links in output from ajdoc/testdata/patterns are broken on my Mozilla and
Opera.
Patch appears to fix the situation.
Best
regards,
George
________________________________________
George C. Harley
"Mik Kersten"
<beatmik@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: aspectj-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/04/2004 22:04
Please respond
to
aspectj-dev
|
|
To
|
<aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [aspectj-dev] ajdoc update
|
|
Hi George,
1: I have only been testing on Windows/MSIE (and I’m
pretty sure that’s the case for Ron
as well). Could you create a bug report for the Opera/Mozilla/UNIX
problem and add that patch to it? Glad you caught that.
2: As described below this is the enhancement request 57974. I just got your patch for it, thanks.
I can review and add these patches tomorrow after 1pm PST. Before I do that, have
you checked that all of the generated documentation in
“ajdoc/testdata/coverage”, and “…/patterns”, and
“.../spacewar” work peroperly? Recall that I couldn’t
apply your patch from Thursday (8th) because that broke the links in
the “…/coverage” test case and “atrack”. If
all works for you let me know, and I can test against “atrack” if
you don’t have it set up.
Mik
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