RFR: JDK-8241780 Allow \n@ inside inline tags.

Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Wed Apr 22 23:54:37 UTC 2020

Updated webrev: no change to src/, all tests now pass.

The HTML docs compare OK before/after the change, ignoring version info 
in the header for each page, and ignoring one file which compares 
differently because of an invalid doc comment (with an unterminated 
`{@code` tag!)

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8241780/webrev.01/index.html

-- Jon

On 4/22/20 2:45 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Pavel,
> You're right, the loop label can go away, and Mach5 found a test 
> failure, so there will be a followup webrev.
> While I agree with the sentiment of checking the visual appearance in 
> a browser, this is a previously unsolved problem, nor does this 
> changeset attempt to address that problem, so it remains unsolved, for 
> now.  I have no suggestions for anything we can use, other than to 
> manually inspect pages.
> -- Jon
> On 4/22/20 2:35 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>> That's really good news for doc-comment writers! Many thanks for 
>> doing that.
>> I'm not an expert in com.sun.tools.javac.parser.DocCommentParser, but 
>> that change looks pretty straightforward. I have a couple of comments 
>> though.
>> 1. We should check that this change passes the tests yet leaves the 
>> OpenJDK API documentation unaffected. The documentation shouldn't 
>> change, nor do I expect it to do so.
>> 2. If all goes well in #1, I'm willing to volunteer a followup task 
>> of removing workarounds for the previous behaviour in OpenJDK.
>> To accomplish what is described in #1 and #2 we need an agreed way of 
>> testing the visual appearance of javadoc HTML output. Whatever the 
>> tool or process we choose, it must be capable of ignoring variance in 
>> markup as long as it *looks* the same in a browser. What would you 
>> suggest we should use?
>> Nit. I think that the "loop" label can go away now.
>> -Pavel
>>> On 22 Apr 2020, at 18:27, Jonathan Gibbons 
>>> <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Please review a change that will permit the use of a previously 
>>> illegal construction, to allow <newline> <spaces> `@` inside inline 
>>> tags. This will allow "<pre>{@code..." constructions that contain 
>>> annotations, such as the following:
>>>     /**
>>>      * This is a method.
>>>      * <pre>{@code
>>>      *    @Override
>>>      *    void m() { }
>>>      * }</pre>
>>>      */
>>> Previously, the text was first parsed into the main body and 
>>> subsequent block tags, and only then were those analyzed for inline 
>>> tags. That meant that the example just given was invalid, for having 
>>> an incomplete inline tag between `<pre>` and an apparent block tag 
>>> named `@Override`. With the change, `@` at the beginning of a line 
>>> inside an inline tag will not be treated as the beginning of a block 
>>> tag, and so the comment will parse as might be expected.
>>> The change to the code is as simple as deleting the code that 
>>> detected block tags inside inline tags.
>>> There are some minor compatibility effects.
>>> 1. Some comments that were previously invalid may become valid. This 
>>> is the desired effect.
>>> 2. Some comments that previously invalid may now be parsed 
>>> differently. In particular, in the case of a genuinely missing '}', 
>>> the parse will now swallow up any block tags that might follow.  For 
>>> example, consider the following:
>>>      /**
>>>       * This is a method.
>>>       * @param p1 this has an unbalanced {@code description
>>>       * @param p2 this is the second parameter
>>>       */
>>>      void m(int p1, int p2) { }
>>> As a result of the change, the description for parameter p2 will be 
>>> swallowed up as part of the invalid description for p1. This will 
>>> only be visible in error messages and clients of the API that 
>>> analyze erroneous comments.
>>> The tests are updated to accommodate the change. A specific test for 
>>> the `<pre>{@code...}</pre>` construction is added.  The biggest 
>>> change is to the test code that "predicts" the output of the AST 
>>> pretty printer, which is now updated to better handle the new 
>>> behavior of `{@code}` and `{@literal}` tags.
>>> -- Jon
>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241780
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8241780/webrev.00/index.html

More information about the compiler-dev mailing list