A few notes

[-]

For that bug, after another look, I think the problem lies in javadoc not
erasing type annotations for primitives when generating links.
I changed Daug.java to
public class Daug {
     public void bark(@Cute("") int t, @Cute("a") Comparable<@Cute("?") ?
super @Cute("int") Integer> p2) {}
}
and the html link is now
<a href="#bark(@Cute(%22%22)int,java.lang.Comparable)">bark</a>
showing how the Comparable has been erased. Javadoc should do the same to
the int primitive.

Another interesting observation is that in the generated javadoc, Cute
annotation on int is not linked, while that on comparable is. It is like
(@Cute("") int t,
<a href="Cute.html" title="annotation in <Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("a")
java.lang.Comparable<<a href="Cute.html" title="annotation in
<Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("?") ? super <a href="Cute.html" title="annotation in
<Unnamed>">@Cute</a>("int") java.lang.Integer> p2)</code>

That might be filed as a separate bug, I guess.

liangchenblue at gmail.com

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:15 PM - <liangchenblue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> I have a few pieces of notes after looking at javadoc stuff.
> 1. JDK-8077565 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077565> is the
> same as JDK-8253700 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253700>
> and has been addressed in commit 8cf8e46
> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8cf8e463c623b3908befb0af289749b47a793267>.
> It can be closed now.
> 2. When a method has type annotations, its html element id may be broken.
> I request filing a bug so I can submit a fix. A minimal example:
>
> Cute.java
> import java.lang.annotation.Documented;
> import java.lang.annotation.ElementType;
> import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
> import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;
> import java.lang.annotation.Target;
>
> @Documented
> @Target(ElementType.TYPE_USE)
> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
> public @interface Cute {
>      String value() default "";
> }
>
> Daug.java:
> public class Daug {
>      public void bark(@Cute("") int t) {}
> }
>
> Build the javadoc for the two classes. Observe that in the method details
> section, the id field of it is like
> <section class="detail" id="bark(@Cute(" ")int)"="">
> which is a map of
> class -> detail
> id -> "bark(@Cute("
> ")int)" -> ""
>
> I suggest changing the id to that used in the method summary section
> (already correct), like "bark(@Cute(%22%3Cannotationcontent%3E%22)int)".
>
> liangchenblue at gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20210115/570756fc/attachment.htm>