RFR: 8342808: Javadoc should add whitespace between type parameters [v2]

Nizar Benalla nbenalla at openjdk.org
Fri Nov 15 17:34:50 UTC 2024


On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:25:59 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to render javadocs as `<K, V, T>` rather than `<K,V,T>` to match naming conventions and make the rendered output slighly nicer to read.
>> 
>> Passes langtool tests.
>> 
>> The [generated docs](https://cr.openjdk.org/~nbenalla/GeneratedDocs/K-V-space/docs/api/index.html) only include `java.base`.
>> 
>> Note for reviewers:
>> 
>> In `TestInheritence`, B is a user defined class and `TypeMirror::getKind` returns `DECLARED `. Which why we see this output. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> html```
>> Class D<R,S>
>> java.lang.Object
>> [pkg.A](https://htmledit.squarefree.com/A.html)<S, [B](https://htmledit.squarefree.com/B.html)>
>> [pkg.B](https://htmledit.squarefree.com/B.html)<S, [B](https://htmledit.squarefree.com/B.html)>
>> pkg.D<R,S>
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - small improvement after getting review comments.
>    
>    Update tests
>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into javadoc-whitespace
>  - Add small whitespace before map parameters

I have dialed down this change a bit. Now only affecting uses of parameterized types, in which the type arguments are longer type expressions.

as in (new):
 ![Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 18 28 07](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/99ebd00b-7ce1-486a-89ef-76bfe8ed43f4)
 
 vs (old)
 
 
![Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 18 29 46](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3ca65475-65b1-4715-8836-8611fb9c0854)


Type parameters in class headings will remain with no spaces.

I have updated the PR's body with a new link to the generated documentation.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21759#issuecomment-2479531297


More information about the javadoc-dev mailing list