CodeTools proposal: doccheck
Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Fri Nov 16 01:49:46 UTC 2018
:-)
Yes, both are useful; DocCheck is more thorough but it can be tedious to
map errors back to source code. It's also the case that since we moved
to unified documentation, we've temporarily-it-seems-like-forever
disabled a lot of the DocLint checks in the build. Overall, the JDK docs
are in pretty good shape, so we should look at turning up the DocLint
knobs again.
-- Jon
On 11/14/2018 11:16 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Thanks! I was wondering why there were two different tools, and this
> is an excellent explanation.
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
> <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> Name: doccheck
>
> Summary: A utility to provide a number of checks for HTML files in
> the JDK documentation for API and related specifications.
>
> Proposed by: Jonathan Gibbons
>
> Rationale:
>
> This utility has been written to provide simple fast, checking for
> various aspects of the JDK documentation, such as invalid HTML,
> broken links, bad characters, and so on. It is useful to
> compare/contrast this with the "doclint" support in javac and
> javadoc. The following is from the proposed documentation [1]
>
>
> DocCheck vs. DocLint
>
> DocLint is a utility built into javac and javadoc that performs
> some
> amount of checking of the content of documentation comments.
> Although there is some overlap in functionality, the two utilities
> are different and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
>
> *
>
> ||DocCheck checks the end result of any generated
> documentation.
> This includes content from all sources, such as documentation
> comments, the standard doclet, user-provided taglets, and
> content supplied via command-line options. Because it is
> analyzing complete HTML pages, it can do more complete checks
> than can DocLint.
>
> However, when problems are found in generated pages, it can be
> harder to track down exactly where the problem needs to be
> fixed. (This was a major motivation for writing DocLint.)
>
> *
>
> DocLint checks the content of documentation comments. This
> makes
> it very easy to identify the exact position of any issues that
> may be found. DocLint can also detect some semantic errors in
> documentation comments that DocCheck cannot detect, such as
> using an |@return| tag in a method returning |void|, or a
> |@param| tag describing a non-existent parameter.
>
> But by its nature, DocLint cannot report on problems such as
> missing links, or errors in user-provided custom taglets, or
> problems in the standard doclet itself. It also cannot reliably
> detect errors in documentation comments at the boundaries
> between content in a documentation comment and content
> generated
> by a custom taglet.
>
> DocLint does not currently check the content of any HTML pages
> in |doc-files| subdirectories. These files are simply copied to
> the output directory, along with any other files in such
> directories.
>
>
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/doccheck/doc/doccheck.html
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejjg/doccheck/doc/doccheck.html>
>
>
More information about the code-tools-dev
mailing list