RFR: 8343239: Javadoc marks non-preview type as preview if it's the subtype of a preview type [v2]

[Hannes Wallnöfer]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:07:11 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlDocletWriter.java line 2519:
>> 
>>> 2517:             target.add(previewDiv);
>>> 2518:         } else if ((forWhat.getKind().isClass() || forWhat.getKind().isInterface())
>>> 2519:                 && !utils.nonPreviewExtendsPreview(forWhat)) {
>> 
>> It appears you are excluding a type from getting a preview notice by checking a condition that is elsewhere used to decide it needs a preview notice. IMO the better solution would be to not give it a preview notice in the first place by not checking implemented interfaces for classes in `Utils.declaredUsingPreviewAPIs(Element)`. (An interface extending a preview interface is a different case again, although I don't think that should ever occur in the JDK.)
>> 
>> That leaves open the case where a preview interface introduces a default method (which is being fixed for javac in [JDK-8343540](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343540)), but I would consider that a separate issue.
>
> I think I fixed it in [f8b3110](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22126/commits/f8b3110c389d65c6cddbafbb28f554aeb93ebab1). The solution looks simpler without any of the added methods, thanks.
> 
>> (An interface extending a preview interface is a different case again, although I don't think that should ever occur in the JDK.)
> 
> Is this a typo? because I think this is exactly what the [PEM Encodings JEP](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/17543/files) does.
> 
> 
> public non-sealed interface AsymmetricKey extends Key, DEREncodable {
> }

You're right. Not a typo, just a fallacy. :)

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22126#discussion_r1858911884