RFR (XS) 8219691: method summary table head should be enclosed in <thead>

[Jonathan Gibbons]

The change is just busy-work for everyone, so I'll take care of it.

-- Jon

On 3/11/19 5:11 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
> Thanks! I'm actually working on a webrev including that change now, 
> but I probably won't get JC to upload it until tomorrow at this point. 
> I'm happy for you to fix that, if it's faster for you.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:09 PM Jonathan Gibbons 
> <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     OK, this looks good, and can sponsor this change,
>
>     I'll take care of the addContent for you if you like.
>
>     -- Jon
>
>     On 3/11/19 2:48 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
>
>>     Jonathan - I have an update of this fix in
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8219691/webrev.01/
>>
>>     I didn't add a new test as the coverage was already good, lots of
>>     failure at least, and equal to what was tested for the previous
>>     behaviour.
>>     
>>     The tests are fast and I do appreciate that - I can run them
>>     semi-continuously. They also didn't suffer from really silly
>>     brittleness (because they don't diff entire files I think) and
>>     are pretty clear. I find the output a little confusing, there are
>>     a couple of minor tweaks I could make that will help I think.
>>     Would help *me* at least - stay tuned.
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jonathan Gibbons
>>     <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
>>     <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         OK, thanks for the update.  The comment/behavior is noted,
>>         though. I've tried hard to make it easier to debug test
>>         failures, and first impressions from a "newcomer" are always
>>         valuable.
>>
>>         For my part, I find that running all javadoc tests is "fairly
>>         fast" and running any one test is "very fast", so it becomes
>>         practical to work through the first few reported issues in
>>         any test failure, and rerun.
>>
>>         -- Jon
>>
>>
>>         On 3/7/19 2:23 PM, Derek Thomson wrote:
>>>         Thanks Jonathan. This might have been a false alarm - I'm
>>>         finding that as I fix the errors caused by my change the
>>>         other failures in the same test seem to just disappear, even
>>>         though they were (to my eye) matching against unrelated
>>>         sections of the HTML. Let me finish up, and I bet it'll be
>>>         fine after all.
>>>
>>>         If any are left broken after that, I'll raise them here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:18 PM Jonathan Gibbons
>>>         <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
>>>         <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 3/7/19 2:01 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>             > If you are seeing tests that fail, I suggest you
>>>             discuss them here
>>>             > first, before embarking on any additional campaign to
>>>             get them
>>>             > working. Given the number of CI systems building and
>>>             testing OpenJDK
>>>             > on all platforms, I would be very surprised to hear of
>>>             tests failing
>>>             > in an unmodified repo.
>>>             >
>>>             ... I should be more specific:   if you are seeing tests
>>>             failing for
>>>             reasons unrelated to your change ....
>>>
>>>             -- Jon
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20190312/a475bc6e/attachment.html>