From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  1 15:16:42 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:16:42 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v8]
In-Reply-To: <R3m5L7NuBUG6JEYSN1KclL0F-Eoau1qRSsfFJHwMT6o=.bbe0bb0c-5cea-4c05-83b0-82a827171ed6@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <R3m5L7NuBUG6JEYSN1KclL0F-Eoau1qRSsfFJHwMT6o=.bbe0bb0c-5cea-4c05-83b0-82a827171ed6@github.com>
Message-ID: <tuSX98Z4rG54pQ9-QVd7otm5lpfM384tL0-bnkp03bI=.dcafefef-3ef9-4d2d-b878-58c9614684d2@github.com>

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:32:51 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
>> Consider these 4 classes
>> 
>>                     A       (interface)
>>                    / \
>>                   /   \
>> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>>                   \   /
>>                    \ /
>>                     D       (class)
>> 
>> 
>> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
>> 
>> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
>> 
>> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)
>
> 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 17 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - review feedback: add positive test
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - revert back to simple earlier fix
>  - revert back to master
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - rename test to be more accurate and simplify code
>  - ... and 7 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/b674cd74...00e7adcc

test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testDuplicateMethodsWarn/TestDuplicateMethods.java line 219:

> 217:                 <div class="member-signature"><span class="modifiers">public</span>&nbsp;<span class="element-name">V</span>()</div>
> 218:                 </div>
> 219:                 """);

That's the doc for the constructor. I was looking for method `testJ` inherited from abstract class `PubJ`.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#discussion_r2177871010

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  1 15:21:42 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:21:42 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v8]
In-Reply-To: <tuSX98Z4rG54pQ9-QVd7otm5lpfM384tL0-bnkp03bI=.dcafefef-3ef9-4d2d-b878-58c9614684d2@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <R3m5L7NuBUG6JEYSN1KclL0F-Eoau1qRSsfFJHwMT6o=.bbe0bb0c-5cea-4c05-83b0-82a827171ed6@github.com>
 <tuSX98Z4rG54pQ9-QVd7otm5lpfM384tL0-bnkp03bI=.dcafefef-3ef9-4d2d-b878-58c9614684d2@github.com>
Message-ID: <cur0yxKv2FIyH3CNjLPWjed71MbTB0XmKJrFLGVfFrk=.aa51771a-a0bb-4817-b952-85117e64149a@github.com>

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:14:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> 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 17 additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - review feedback: add positive test
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>>  - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>>  - revert back to simple earlier fix
>>  - revert back to master
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>>  - rename test to be more accurate and simplify code
>>  - ... and 7 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/c984557a...00e7adcc
>
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testDuplicateMethodsWarn/TestDuplicateMethods.java line 219:
> 
>> 217:                 <div class="member-signature"><span class="modifiers">public</span>&nbsp;<span class="element-name">V</span>()</div>
>> 218:                 </div>
>> 219:                 """);
> 
> That's the doc for the constructor. I was looking for method `testJ` inherited from abstract class `PubJ`.

I believe `testJ` does not have it's own doc in `V.html`. It only appears in the "methods inherited from class J" section

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#discussion_r2177883731

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  1 17:14:42 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:14:42 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v8]
In-Reply-To: <cur0yxKv2FIyH3CNjLPWjed71MbTB0XmKJrFLGVfFrk=.aa51771a-a0bb-4817-b952-85117e64149a@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <R3m5L7NuBUG6JEYSN1KclL0F-Eoau1qRSsfFJHwMT6o=.bbe0bb0c-5cea-4c05-83b0-82a827171ed6@github.com>
 <tuSX98Z4rG54pQ9-QVd7otm5lpfM384tL0-bnkp03bI=.dcafefef-3ef9-4d2d-b878-58c9614684d2@github.com>
 <cur0yxKv2FIyH3CNjLPWjed71MbTB0XmKJrFLGVfFrk=.aa51771a-a0bb-4817-b952-85117e64149a@github.com>
Message-ID: <UvRtIWDCGIS4fMZHtOPzQnu4wMa5eeZHyxAYFEYSjg8=.c05a934d-324c-4b8b-8e8d-c22d17924978@github.com>

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:18:52 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testDuplicateMethodsWarn/TestDuplicateMethods.java line 219:
>> 
>>> 217:                 <div class="member-signature"><span class="modifiers">public</span>&nbsp;<span class="element-name">V</span>()</div>
>>> 218:                 </div>
>>> 219:                 """);
>> 
>> That's the doc for the constructor. I was looking for method `testJ` inherited from abstract class `PubJ`.
>
> I believe `testJ` does not have it's own doc in `V.html`. It only appears in the "methods inherited from class J" section

Yes, that's what should be tested.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#discussion_r2178140084

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 12:17:32 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:17:32 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v9]
In-Reply-To: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
Message-ID: <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>

> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
> Consider these 4 classes
> 
>                     A       (interface)
>                    / \
>                   /   \
> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>                   \   /
>                    \ /
>                     D       (class)
> 
> 
> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
> 
> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
> 
> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
> 
> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
> 
> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)

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 19 additional commits since the last revision:

 - Fix test based on feedback
 - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
 - review feedback: add positive test
 - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
 - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
 - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
 - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
 - revert back to simple earlier fix
 - revert back to master
 - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
 - ... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/a2470982...a34c4d51

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123/files/00e7adcc..a34c4d51

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=25123&range=08
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=25123&range=07-08

  Stats: 9881 lines in 490 files changed: 4908 ins; 2962 del; 2011 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25123/head:pull/25123

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 12:17:32 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:17:32 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v9]
In-Reply-To: <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
Message-ID: <r-IjNTCB4aA7WoTXmstjd9DTuF9BD1YLnXsbvMi7fQM=.34a55db7-851c-4c87-ad7b-0cff0b4f14a5@github.com>

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:14:28 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
>> Consider these 4 classes
>> 
>>                     A       (interface)
>>                    / \
>>                   /   \
>> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>>                   \   /
>>                    \ /
>>                     D       (class)
>> 
>> 
>> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
>> 
>> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
>> 
>> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)
>
> 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 19 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fix test based on feedback
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - review feedback: add positive test
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - revert back to simple earlier fix
>  - revert back to master
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - ... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/a2470982...a34c4d51

Thanks, looks good. 

And sorry for being nit-picky about the tests, but it's better to have all details covered.

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

Marked as reviewed by hannesw (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#pullrequestreview-2986952404

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 12:17:33 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:17:33 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v8]
In-Reply-To: <UvRtIWDCGIS4fMZHtOPzQnu4wMa5eeZHyxAYFEYSjg8=.c05a934d-324c-4b8b-8e8d-c22d17924978@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <R3m5L7NuBUG6JEYSN1KclL0F-Eoau1qRSsfFJHwMT6o=.bbe0bb0c-5cea-4c05-83b0-82a827171ed6@github.com>
 <tuSX98Z4rG54pQ9-QVd7otm5lpfM384tL0-bnkp03bI=.dcafefef-3ef9-4d2d-b878-58c9614684d2@github.com>
 <cur0yxKv2FIyH3CNjLPWjed71MbTB0XmKJrFLGVfFrk=.aa51771a-a0bb-4817-b952-85117e64149a@github.com>
 <UvRtIWDCGIS4fMZHtOPzQnu4wMa5eeZHyxAYFEYSjg8=.c05a934d-324c-4b8b-8e8d-c22d17924978@github.com>
Message-ID: <y_UBMO9GvRp9ElWEVKn-6ZB5n_Ht76NDri9BipRlWEQ=.74addd3c-031f-4e53-81a3-5a97e2974605@github.com>

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:12:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I believe `testJ` does not have it's own doc in `V.html`. It only appears in the "methods inherited from class J" section
>
> Yes, that's what should be tested.

Fixed in [a34c4d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25123/commits/a34c4d5102855163ca2261b394bfc4d534c34b2c).

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#discussion_r2185203183

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 12:20:44 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:20:44 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v9]
In-Reply-To: <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
Message-ID: <G8FRfK6cDSzCTAkXaFTxwLv_Fgm9KbrQBWyOxbMOEFY=.55b68c42-061a-4012-abc4-2d5dede7aae2@github.com>

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:17:32 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
>> Consider these 4 classes
>> 
>>                     A       (interface)
>>                    / \
>>                   /   \
>> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>>                   \   /
>>                    \ /
>>                     D       (class)
>> 
>> 
>> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
>> 
>> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
>> 
>> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)
>
> 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 19 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fix test based on feedback
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - review feedback: add positive test
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - revert back to simple earlier fix
>  - revert back to master
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - ... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/51dab163...a34c4d51

Thank you for the reviews Hannes and Chen.

I will integrate once CI jobs are completed on all platforms. Better to be careful.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#issuecomment-3035990222

From liach at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 12:27:41 2025
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:27:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc [v9]
In-Reply-To: <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
 <LFlUg6zswM3WWbV70i4c39MtW3TV3N6Vn3kau6axLZk=.9f81e462-a7c7-4ed6-bad4-6037f17f05a0@github.com>
Message-ID: <Kplr2MF05lRFHukLgMv2Be9x6eRlSD_xFAkRo3uZX54=.7bee236c-4986-45a6-aea8-3ea8c144ac60@github.com>

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:17:32 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
>> Consider these 4 classes
>> 
>>                     A       (interface)
>>                    / \
>>                   /   \
>> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>>                   \   /
>>                    \ /
>>                     D       (class)
>> 
>> 
>> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
>> 
>> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
>> 
>> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
>> 
>> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)
>
> 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 19 additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fix test based on feedback
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - review feedback: add positive test
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - Feedback from @hns -  Expand test with new test cases
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - revert back to simple earlier fix
>  - revert back to master
>  - Merge branch 'master' into duplicate-APIs
>  - ... and 9 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/193b8c36...a34c4d51

The test update looks good.

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

Marked as reviewed by liach (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123#pullrequestreview-2987001946

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Fri Jul  4 15:12:49 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 15:12:49 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc
In-Reply-To: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
References: <0NrLP37RZ6I7ytBxcNyNFReQVvgu-6p_-HbSbHW9ZRM=.c7fd5ae4-8c8d-48ea-8349-5c92a2f78c71@github.com>
Message-ID: <wpk2LHFITCZEZkzQaYsYpn10-1qdWXeAxnd2LbsEEVA=.b64d1f7e-2a26-45f8-8748-d99d499d6a3b@github.com>

On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:53:41 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this patch to fix a bug where a method can be documented multiple times 
> Consider these 4 classes
> 
>                     A       (interface)
>                    / \
>                   /   \
> (abstract class)  C     B   ( interface)
>                   \   /
>                    \ /
>                     D       (class)
> 
> 
> Where `A` declares `testA()`, `C` implements it `public final void testA()`, `B` extends `A` but does *not* override it, `D` extends `C` and implements `B`
> 
> In the generated javadoc, `testA()` is documented twice.
> 
> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 51 19](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/46538e61-1546-4128-8041-296d8491406f)
> 
> After the patch, `testA()` is only documented once:
> 
> ![Screenshot 2025-05-08 at 15 52 16](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a6b86a21-7104-460c-8f3f-36cee5962eed)

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: f2d2eef9
Author:    Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/f2d2eef988c57cc9f6194a8fd5b2b422035ee68f
Stats:     234 lines in 2 files changed: 220 ins; 6 del; 8 mod

8177100: APIs duplicated in JavaDoc

Reviewed-by: liach, hannesw

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25123

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jul  7 15:40:50 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Khalid Boulanouare)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 15:40:50 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361188: Test
 java/awt/Mixing/AWT_Mixing/JComboBoxOverlapping.java fails on Mac OS X
Message-ID: <pRLwzmItSydBfbThg4hoOE_eNwBa2rnxLYB0-sEZPis=.1e90ff84-af12-4949-9151-cca0a6a9eb9a@github.com>

Fixed an issue where null value component is not checked in class java/awt/Mixing/AWT_Mixing/OverlappingTestBase.

Also removed test java/awt/Mixing/AWT_Mixing/JComboBoxOverlapping.java from problem list file.

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

Depends on: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25971

Commit messages:
 - Merge branch 'pr/25971' into jdk-8361188
 - Merge branch 'pr/25971' into jdk-8361188
 - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into jdk-8361188
 - Removes test from Problem List
 - Returns false if component is null, in the case of embedded frame

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26162/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26162&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8361188
  Stats: 3 lines in 2 files changed: 1 ins; 1 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26162.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26162/head:pull/26162

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26162

From jpai at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  8 05:20:39 2025
From: jpai at openjdk.org (Jaikiran Pai)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 05:20:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
In-Reply-To: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
Message-ID: <iFFsM7h9mLR7B9Vz1sE0aCSqvw0vn3vbeCkLJp5X-Yc=.c13ada22-b782-4c0a-8819-79e7d88037cb@github.com>

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:22:24 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.

Hello Nizar, if I understand correctly, this problem listing can be removed and the PR integrated once the merge conflicts are resolved in this PR?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855#issuecomment-3047392332

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  8 13:28:28 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 13:28:28 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs
Message-ID: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>

Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.

Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.02/) (`java.base` module only). The docs were generated with syntax highlighting enabled in order to view the highlighting themes, although that is obviously not part of the change.

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

Commit messages:
 - Finalize dark theme
 - Fix icon colors for dark theme
 - Improve theme support
 - Set light theme by default
 - Improve dark theme, implement theme switcher
 - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8342705
 - JDK-8342705: Add dark mode for docs

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26185&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8342705
  Stats: 635 lines in 17 files changed: 593 ins; 25 del; 17 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26185/head:pull/26185

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Tue Jul  8 15:50:41 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:50:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
In-Reply-To: <iFFsM7h9mLR7B9Vz1sE0aCSqvw0vn3vbeCkLJp5X-Yc=.c13ada22-b782-4c0a-8819-79e7d88037cb@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
 <iFFsM7h9mLR7B9Vz1sE0aCSqvw0vn3vbeCkLJp5X-Yc=.c13ada22-b782-4c0a-8819-79e7d88037cb@github.com>
Message-ID: <QFt8QCfhCaXSdiZ1rimjt24GqIM7EKYFqva7oeqrlSU=.28676a3b-9b03-4a97-8ede-cc16b4fee114@github.com>

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 05:18:31 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.
>
> Hello Nizar, if I understand correctly, this problem listing can be removed and the PR integrated once the merge conflicts are resolved in this PR?

@jaikiran 
Correct, I intended to fix [JDK-8354921](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8354921) in the same PR but I haven't gotten to fix it yet.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855#issuecomment-3049466391

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 11 13:56:52 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:56:52 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
Message-ID: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>

Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 

Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.

The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 

The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).

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

Commit messages:
 - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8356975
 - Improve implementation and add test
 - JDK-8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 - 8355933: Change section title for permanent APIs affected by preview features

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26267&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8356975
  Stats: 509 lines in 14 files changed: 427 ins; 30 del; 52 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26267/head:pull/26267

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 11 15:31:53 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:31:53 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
Message-ID: <rvwv_NqO4F8KFEwbbh_IvQ7MvPV91hNMuNj8x9yzdM0=.08774f0c-9d45-4800-9464-eb823111325c@github.com>

> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.

Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains two commits:

 - Merge branch 'master' into problemlisted-sincecheck-test
   
   # Conflicts:
   #	test/jdk/ProblemList.txt
 - this test no longer needs to be problem listed

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

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=25855&range=01
  Stats: 2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25855/head:pull/25855

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855

From liach at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 11 15:39:41 2025
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:39:41 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <rvwv_NqO4F8KFEwbbh_IvQ7MvPV91hNMuNj8x9yzdM0=.08774f0c-9d45-4800-9464-eb823111325c@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
 <rvwv_NqO4F8KFEwbbh_IvQ7MvPV91hNMuNj8x9yzdM0=.08774f0c-9d45-4800-9464-eb823111325c@github.com>
Message-ID: <YelOAps_FyDH9jIozHTMtfnBKwRmvULoWZFQaNSdymQ=.4bb9b423-ffcf-4ba1-a968-bd8f2ccab4dc@github.com>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:31:53 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains two commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into problemlisted-sincecheck-test
>    
>    # Conflicts:
>    #	test/jdk/ProblemList.txt
>  - this test no longer needs to be problem listed

lgtm

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

Marked as reviewed by liach (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855#pullrequestreview-3010813860

From liach at openjdk.org  Sat Jul 12 22:33:38 2025
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:33:38 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
In-Reply-To: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
Message-ID: <mJozsDJCJ1fJyo2ITeCioRT1lupfchtlI9025QjowOM=.8f008d61-7d93-40f7-bf6a-b9435d0382a1@github.com>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:49:21 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
> 
> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
> 
> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
> 
> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).

src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlDocletWriter.java line 2506:

> 2504:                     previewDiv.setId(htmlIds.forPreviewSection(forWhat));
> 2505:                     previewDiv.add(HtmlTree.DIV(HtmlStyles.previewComment,
> 2506:                             commentTagsToContent(forWhat, tags.getFirst().getContent(), false)));

Should we add a check to assert there is exactly one occurrence of such a preview note tag?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#discussion_r2202949167

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Mon Jul 14 12:39:57 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:39:57 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
In-Reply-To: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
Message-ID: <u2rljVk1fczAvNxwWWO7JYsgmOnHHhjb8splKMWogfQ=.46607279-6bfb-41d0-b618-f5356c32cf84@github.com>

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:22:24 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: bcd86d57
Author:    Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/bcd86d575fe0682a234228c18b0c2e817d3816da
Stats:     2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 0 mod

8358627: tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26

Reviewed-by: liach, syan

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Mon Jul 14 12:39:56 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:39:56 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8358627:
 tools/sincechecker/modules/java.base/JavaBaseCheckSince.java fails with JDK 26
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <rvwv_NqO4F8KFEwbbh_IvQ7MvPV91hNMuNj8x9yzdM0=.08774f0c-9d45-4800-9464-eb823111325c@github.com>
References: <mcPF1ypiHlYI3H4kgl0bwvU3KF_YO40Yo6aY6w1LX4c=.4376bebf-3397-4354-be3e-9fd0719b24db@github.com>
 <rvwv_NqO4F8KFEwbbh_IvQ7MvPV91hNMuNj8x9yzdM0=.08774f0c-9d45-4800-9464-eb823111325c@github.com>
Message-ID: <TXmZg0hCoGunNvDSbPeybL6rDelR8ebAjXS2bFPt8ME=.8b4b6810-c6de-4991-bce2-22e4fbff0c6e@github.com>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:31:53 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Once https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358769 is resolved, JavaBaseCheckSince no longer needs to be problemlisted.
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains two commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into problemlisted-sincecheck-test
>    
>    # Conflicts:
>    #	test/jdk/ProblemList.txt
>  - this test no longer needs to be problem listed

Thanks for the reviews

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25855#issuecomment-3069334654

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 11:04:05 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <mJozsDJCJ1fJyo2ITeCioRT1lupfchtlI9025QjowOM=.8f008d61-7d93-40f7-bf6a-b9435d0382a1@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <mJozsDJCJ1fJyo2ITeCioRT1lupfchtlI9025QjowOM=.8f008d61-7d93-40f7-bf6a-b9435d0382a1@github.com>
Message-ID: <uKb4ut4mMCHGAmnzQC6cKWZdpH7HQI3MB49mjKK4Po8=.6d294c9a-affb-4e2a-9259-88b7bf669373@github.com>

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:09:42 GMT, Chen Liang <liach at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Add warning for multiple preview notes
>
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlDocletWriter.java line 2506:
> 
>> 2504:                     previewDiv.setId(htmlIds.forPreviewSection(forWhat));
>> 2505:                     previewDiv.add(HtmlTree.DIV(HtmlStyles.previewComment,
>> 2506:                             commentTagsToContent(forWhat, tags.getFirst().getContent(), false)));
> 
> Should we add a check to assert there is exactly one occurrence of such a preview note tag?

Makes sense. I don't think it's serious enough to generate an error though. I'm adding a change to trigger a warning.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#discussion_r2207153789

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 11:04:05 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
Message-ID: <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>

> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
> 
> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
> 
> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
> 
> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).

Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Add warning for multiple preview notes

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267/files/e3f9a2b6..62aa0451

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26267&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26267&range=00-01

  Stats: 11 lines in 4 files changed: 11 ins; 0 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26267/head:pull/26267

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 11:15:39 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:15:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs
In-Reply-To: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
Message-ID: <lOG9GRkBzPBbv3RAJKqQrprex5JkyjLi6KmlrPlh2-Y=.e0e59f5f-bfff-41c1-bcef-7d915274b3ec@github.com>

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 13:22:20 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
> 
> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.02/) (`java.base` module only). The docs were generated with syntax highlighting enabled in order to view the highlighting themes, although that is obviously not part of the change.

I'm finding the orange link color a bit too flashy, so I [created a new snapshot](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.03/index.html) that uses a pale blue color for links. This results in a less striking color scheme that is more in line with the default light theme IMO.

I also realized that there is no requirement in terms of a11y to use a particular link color for navigation links, so I switched to a neutral color for links [in the subnavigation and sidebar](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.03/java.base/java/lang/StringBuilder.html), which further "calms" the layout and improves readability IMO.

I haven't updated the PR yet and posting this here for discussion.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185#issuecomment-3073193599

From liach at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 13:06:40 2025
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:06:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
Message-ID: <KfJN4iyKIKA0cr1I5JQuyc3zglkJkvOnBNxDWa20MRg=.7a54145c-c50b-41cb-9625-248ff1d8ce2d@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
>> 
>> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
>> 
>> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
>> 
>> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Add warning for multiple preview notes

Looks good to me. Let's see if this requires a CSR before we proceed.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#issuecomment-3073517492

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 14:44:39 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:44:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <KfJN4iyKIKA0cr1I5JQuyc3zglkJkvOnBNxDWa20MRg=.7a54145c-c50b-41cb-9625-248ff1d8ce2d@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
 <KfJN4iyKIKA0cr1I5JQuyc3zglkJkvOnBNxDWa20MRg=.7a54145c-c50b-41cb-9625-248ff1d8ce2d@github.com>
Message-ID: <qjTKZsQW0OdpyYjYyYk6IfGSzi7lG5_sltaYuvg19_M=.13bb5c03-054f-4674-9958-b2cd04152673@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:03:47 GMT, Chen Liang <liach at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Looks good to me. Let's see if this requires a CSR before we proceed.

It's a hidden option, so it shouldn't require a CSR.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#issuecomment-3073909622

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 15:22:44 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:22:44 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs
In-Reply-To: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
Message-ID: <w5A8FTd40aaLQ6LEZgsn-N1iojHkJtlkASeyh3KIkxc=.c15c161a-c266-45e4-9fc8-f3a2078a3612@github.com>

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 13:22:20 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
> 
> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.02/) (`java.base` module only). The docs were generated with syntax highlighting enabled in order to view the highlighting themes, although that is obviously not part of the change.

src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/highlight.css line 71:

> 69:     .hljs-title.function_,
> 70:     .hljs-template-variable {
> 71:         color: #66bcce;

I don't think you can nest rules here, the browser may skip/ignore them.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185#discussion_r2207819271

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 15:36:19 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:36:19 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361366: Allow sorting of member details in lexicographical order
Message-ID: <ZgX6ALR-ScgQ4uHtplsNBpPfC_OwVaN0I8Ep3vx9co8=.a0ae3c63-3d58-4ffb-92c6-2b5dfedecf10@github.com>

Please review this patch to add a toggle to order the member details in the table of contents in lexical order

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

Commit messages:
 - add toggle to sort TOC in lexical order

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26322&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8361366
  Stats: 141 lines in 12 files changed: 139 ins; 1 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26322/head:pull/26322

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322

From liach at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 16:29:40 2025
From: liach at openjdk.org (Chen Liang)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 16:29:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
Message-ID: <UCYBfU_gX7ihzfnaSTP-S541SJ2X-Wa_KyB2Sij4Uw0=.58c073cc-b39b-4e20-89ec-5a7c85f856e7@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
>> 
>> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
>> 
>> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
>> 
>> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Add warning for multiple preview notes

Marked as reviewed by liach (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#pullrequestreview-3021178473

From rriggs at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 15 20:16:40 2025
From: rriggs at openjdk.org (Roger Riggs)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:16:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
Message-ID: <Uhcsj8G9xzP73YnualfIRG658O5kcYlycjmvjtSQD_g=.78ad948c-b07c-454e-b647-513cbbb89c8b@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
>> 
>> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
>> 
>> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
>> 
>> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Add warning for multiple preview notes

"hidden" is an illusion, undocumented is closer to the truth.
If the option is used in the make files, its just as visible as any other source change and is not optional.
And since source files are changed to take advantage of it, its even less hidden; just obscure.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#issuecomment-3075394969

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 16 09:41:40 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 09:41:40 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <Uhcsj8G9xzP73YnualfIRG658O5kcYlycjmvjtSQD_g=.78ad948c-b07c-454e-b647-513cbbb89c8b@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
 <Uhcsj8G9xzP73YnualfIRG658O5kcYlycjmvjtSQD_g=.78ad948c-b07c-454e-b647-513cbbb89c8b@github.com>
Message-ID: <PI-UF9sHLfbm0XuPhcmRje12Hng_KH9LeYI2b1913As=.b1399484-6b07-45cb-912f-51bf0fba6b9a@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:14:30 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Add warning for multiple preview notes
>
> "hidden" is an illusion, undocumented is closer to the truth.
> If the option is used in the make files, its just as visible as any other source change and is not optional.
> And since source files are changed to take advantage of it, its even less hidden; just obscure.

@RogerRiggs I agree, it's not ideal. JavaDoc has this dual personality as a tool to document Java/JDK libs and third party developer code, and these tasks are sometimes at odds. Since we don't want to make Preview Features a generic Java/JavaDoc feature a hidden/undocumented option is the only way to go here.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#issuecomment-3077774128

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 16 09:54:50 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 09:54:50 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs
In-Reply-To: <w5A8FTd40aaLQ6LEZgsn-N1iojHkJtlkASeyh3KIkxc=.c15c161a-c266-45e4-9fc8-f3a2078a3612@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
 <w5A8FTd40aaLQ6LEZgsn-N1iojHkJtlkASeyh3KIkxc=.c15c161a-c266-45e4-9fc8-f3a2078a3612@github.com>
Message-ID: <6t3z0ifJ2qJ4SLwW_x8Q0EXyZQA__5kw6uI5cI4yTrM=.9f74e30e-a64f-4e22-ac0e-a9f1de577788@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:20:15 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
>> 
>> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.02/) (`java.base` module only). The docs were generated with syntax highlighting enabled in order to view the highlighting themes, although that is obviously not part of the change.
>
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/highlight.css line 71:
> 
>> 69:     .hljs-title.function_,
>> 70:     .hljs-template-variable {
>> 71:         color: #66bcce;
> 
> I don't think you can nest rules here, the browser may skip/ignore them.

It [works for me](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.02/java.base/java/lang/Thread.html#creating-and-starting-threads-heading), I've tried it on Firefox, Safari and Chrome. 

Documentation of CSS nesting: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_nesting/Using_CSS_nesting
It's implemented in all major browsers: https://caniuse.com/?search=css%20nesting

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185#discussion_r2209846566

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 16 13:05:03 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:05:03 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361366: Allow sorting of member details in lexicographical
 order [v2]
In-Reply-To: <ZgX6ALR-ScgQ4uHtplsNBpPfC_OwVaN0I8Ep3vx9co8=.a0ae3c63-3d58-4ffb-92c6-2b5dfedecf10@github.com>
References: <ZgX6ALR-ScgQ4uHtplsNBpPfC_OwVaN0I8Ep3vx9co8=.a0ae3c63-3d58-4ffb-92c6-2b5dfedecf10@github.com>
Message-ID: <D4_I-Wr82cmQGEgsZrsCWD3WA1_Qt1Tt3yrDgsNVTWg=.d7b702e4-fbbb-4f9f-91f3-d72dace988dc@github.com>

> Please review this patch to add a toggle to order the member details in the table of contents in lexical order

Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  make toc.js resilient to being loaded after script.js

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322/files/82c6fee3..3d315fcd

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26322&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26322&range=00-01

  Stats: 11 lines in 1 file changed: 7 ins; 0 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26322/head:pull/26322

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322

From aturbanov at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 16 14:42:50 2025
From: aturbanov at openjdk.org (Andrey Turbanov)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:42:50 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
Message-ID: <MI_YuUCftf4vMr13LTso43s3d8zXnoQq15T7ywR-K1A=.24a9c428-1319-4d7b-9367-fba3c3b9905e@github.com>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:04:05 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
>> 
>> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
>> 
>> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
>> 
>> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Add warning for multiple preview notes

test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testPreviewTag/TestPreviewTag.java line 38:

> 36: import javadoc.tester.JavadocTester;
> 37: 
> 38: public class TestPreviewTag  extends JavadocTester {

Suggestion:

public class TestPreviewTag extends JavadocTester {

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#discussion_r2210631534

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 07:47:48 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 07:47:48 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361366: Allow sorting of member details in lexicographical
 order [v2]
In-Reply-To: <D4_I-Wr82cmQGEgsZrsCWD3WA1_Qt1Tt3yrDgsNVTWg=.d7b702e4-fbbb-4f9f-91f3-d72dace988dc@github.com>
References: <ZgX6ALR-ScgQ4uHtplsNBpPfC_OwVaN0I8Ep3vx9co8=.a0ae3c63-3d58-4ffb-92c6-2b5dfedecf10@github.com>
 <D4_I-Wr82cmQGEgsZrsCWD3WA1_Qt1Tt3yrDgsNVTWg=.d7b702e4-fbbb-4f9f-91f3-d72dace988dc@github.com>
Message-ID: <Ccjd9j7JFbV0pb-oQRSZbmvzKKJ_PelmJ2MZaqTvdpA=.12f6567d-1033-491b-9bd7-557535fe5851@github.com>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:05:03 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch to add a toggle to order the member details in the table of contents in lexical order. The selected choice is stored and preserved.
>> 
>> Here is a preview of the new toggle.
>> 
>> 
>> https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/55c81e4b-5fc0-416e-8946-53aede419640
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   make toc.js resilient to being loaded after script.js

This looks good, but there's some room for improvement. 

My biggest gripe is that it only reorders the members in the table of contents, but not the member details in the page. Thus, when scrolling through the page, the selection in the TOC jumps around randomly. The idea of the scroll-following TOC is that it mirrors the order of page contents, so both TOC and page contents should be reordered IMO.

I think the icon is not very good at hinting at its function. Some variant of  [A-Z sort icon ](https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/sort-alphabetically) might work better. There should probably be a different icon for non-lexicographic source order, but I'm not sure what that should be. I can help with creating the icons.

Is there a reason for putting the functionality in a new JavaScript file? I agree `script.js` is a bit overloaded and unorderly, but I would prefer cleaning up that existing file instead of adding a new one.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322#issuecomment-3082983826

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 09:21:48 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 09:21:48 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361366: Allow sorting of member details in lexicographical
 order [v2]
In-Reply-To: <Ccjd9j7JFbV0pb-oQRSZbmvzKKJ_PelmJ2MZaqTvdpA=.12f6567d-1033-491b-9bd7-557535fe5851@github.com>
References: <ZgX6ALR-ScgQ4uHtplsNBpPfC_OwVaN0I8Ep3vx9co8=.a0ae3c63-3d58-4ffb-92c6-2b5dfedecf10@github.com>
 <D4_I-Wr82cmQGEgsZrsCWD3WA1_Qt1Tt3yrDgsNVTWg=.d7b702e4-fbbb-4f9f-91f3-d72dace988dc@github.com>
 <Ccjd9j7JFbV0pb-oQRSZbmvzKKJ_PelmJ2MZaqTvdpA=.12f6567d-1033-491b-9bd7-557535fe5851@github.com>
Message-ID: <OvILXeXgnfAz3Zal7LZPYtJ_SjJq9wy1ioli74B8-ds=.5641b0a4-a150-436a-9fa3-f6e44afcba34@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 07:45:09 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> both TOC and page contents should be reordered IMO

Thinking about it some more, I think it should be enough to reorder member details in the main section, and then rebuild the TOC to let it do its thing.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26322#issuecomment-3083304028

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 11:52:37 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:52:37 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs [v2]
In-Reply-To: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
Message-ID: <MkZxALe1S_xMvVTaIXnKdNdqY54nyYx_EBQaWLcC3mY=.bf3aa8ea-cfbb-4085-9691-501cf9e146f2@github.com>

> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
> 
> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.03/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html) (module `java.base` only). 
> 
> Screenshots below show both themes and how to switch between them.
> 
> <img width="1155" height="743" alt="light-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d3b5703d-67d0-4f70-b8e4-39de13b74600" />
> <img width="1155" height="742" alt="dark-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ab6f479b-df94-42bf-9c87-eea3978f38f1" />

Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:

 - Update search tag highlight colors
 - Update link colors
 - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8342705
 - Finalize dark theme
 - Fix icon colors for dark theme
 - Improve theme support
 - Set light theme by default
 - Improve dark theme, implement theme switcher
 - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8342705
 - JDK-8342705: Add dark mode for docs

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

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26185&range=01
  Stats: 647 lines in 18 files changed: 600 ins; 25 del; 22 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26185/head:pull/26185

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 11:55:50 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:55:50 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs [v2]
In-Reply-To: <MkZxALe1S_xMvVTaIXnKdNdqY54nyYx_EBQaWLcC3mY=.bf3aa8ea-cfbb-4085-9691-501cf9e146f2@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
 <MkZxALe1S_xMvVTaIXnKdNdqY54nyYx_EBQaWLcC3mY=.bf3aa8ea-cfbb-4085-9691-501cf9e146f2@github.com>
Message-ID: <QDAkmgWhWqMxwog7KVa4D86klpZChfGX5AwX_7n22t8=.01f05a7d-67ef-4631-a5ff-447bfa3086bb@github.com>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:52:37 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
>> 
>> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.03/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html) (module `java.base` only). 
>> 
>> Screenshots below show both themes and how to switch between them.
>> 
>> <img width="1155" height="743" alt="light-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d3b5703d-67d0-4f70-b8e4-39de13b74600" />
>> <img width="1155" height="742" alt="dark-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ab6f479b-df94-42bf-9c87-eea3978f38f1" />
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
> 
>  - Update search tag highlight colors
>  - Update link colors
>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8342705
>  - Finalize dark theme
>  - Fix icon colors for dark theme
>  - Improve theme support
>  - Set light theme by default
>  - Improve dark theme, implement theme switcher
>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8342705
>  - JDK-8342705: Add dark mode for docs

I updated the PR with changes described in my previous comment.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185#issuecomment-3083766307

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 13:48:00 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:48:00 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <MI_YuUCftf4vMr13LTso43s3d8zXnoQq15T7ywR-K1A=.24a9c428-1319-4d7b-9367-fba3c3b9905e@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
 <nI3Dxw0vCgne2AY3Qg39MoQuye62biOiWVIW1-N_gu4=.6a411f1c-87b2-4a75-89a5-3a8d6c5a9e87@github.com>
 <MI_YuUCftf4vMr13LTso43s3d8zXnoQq15T7ywR-K1A=.24a9c428-1319-4d7b-9367-fba3c3b9905e@github.com>
Message-ID: <s4n7TmySEDzu5DJNoHPWtRO5nNYgbT18wE3lheJTbWE=.777ff1a0-80ac-4b6b-9e34-bf09f8e53c2e@github.com>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:39:41 GMT, Andrey Turbanov <aturbanov at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Add warning for multiple preview notes
>
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testPreviewTag/TestPreviewTag.java line 38:
> 
>> 36: import javadoc.tester.JavadocTester;
>> 37: 
>> 38: public class TestPreviewTag  extends JavadocTester {
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> public class TestPreviewTag extends JavadocTester {

@turbanoff thanks for reviewing, but I don't want to force a re-approval for this trivial issue alone.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267#discussion_r2213394922

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 17 13:48:02 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:48:02 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API
 docs
In-Reply-To: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
References: <tuolu_31P26T7mgomMthfT85CMZedd8tfs1gMKNdk-0=.0ddfe893-306e-4496-813c-295e0ce9a6f5@github.com>
Message-ID: <BmXF72uKal4dtT3bxHAfw5R2UK5sorDR2KNqS30kcRg=.f8f8d977-a42b-49c3-bbe1-6bf8f03de8aa@github.com>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:49:21 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review a change to allow marking API elements as preview features via a new hidden `--preview-feature-tag` option. In conjunction with the already existing hidden `--preview-note-tag` option this allows documenting elements as preview features without relying on JDK-internal types. 
> 
> Part of this change is a refactoring of how `SummaryListWriter` allows its subclasses to extend the content of summary pages. The old `addExtra*` hook methods were too unflexible as they always add extra content before other page content. I replaced them with protected `getIndexLinks` and `addSummaries` methods that allow overriding methods to add extra content before or after the default content returned by the super method.
> 
> The change also includes the fix for [JDK-8355933](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8355933) to change the presentation and wording for elements with preview notes as requested by the Valhalla team. 
> 
> The output generated by the new test with preview features marked by tags [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8356975/out.00/api/package-summary.html).

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 365660e6
Author:    Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/365660e667704d000eafe9179dc3dec315fb6415
Stats:     520 lines in 14 files changed: 438 ins; 30 del; 52 mod

8356975: Provide alternative way to generate preview API docs
8355933: Change section title for permanent APIs affected by preview features

Reviewed-by: liach

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26267

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 15:00:36 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:00:36 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
Message-ID: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>

This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.

The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.


src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list


I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

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

Commit messages:
 - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into 8359760-rm-jsobject
 - Bump copyright year
 - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into 8359760-rm-jsobject
 - 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26393&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359760
  Stats: 360 lines in 11 files changed: 0 ins; 356 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26393/head:pull/26393

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 15:00:36 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:00:36 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
Message-ID: <Jy76wevmXN0kbyz2G-gSH2SrK9dfwZadFX2je3roZA0=.79941b87-398d-4812-910e-163520606089@github.com>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:58:14 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
> 
> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
> 
> 
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list
> 
> 
> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

@RogerRiggs @AlanBateman Can you review this PR to remove the `jdk.jsobject` module, which was deprecated for removal by PR #20555 ?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#issuecomment-3103204720

From alanb at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 15:09:25 2025
From: alanb at openjdk.org (Alan Bateman)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:09:25 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
Message-ID: <3jmBibdv4ZqVjUF9FI7KNvJ2H3siKn2H-WivoPRaWXw=.f399ac98-c29d-46a2-9c39-7ec5cd691623@github.com>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:58:14 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
> 
> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
> 
> 
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list
> 
> 
> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

I did a quick scan and the updates to the conf, the removal, and the test changes look okay. Happy to review the CSR when you have it ready.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#issuecomment-3103254196

From rriggs at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 15:18:52 2025
From: rriggs at openjdk.org (Roger Riggs)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:18:52 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
Message-ID: <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:58:14 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
> 
> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
> 
> 
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list
> 
> 
> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testModules/jdk/element-list line 305:

> 303: jdk.jshell.spi
> 304: jdk.jshell.tool
> 305: module:jdk.jsobject

There is a similar pair in test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list.
Can it be removed? Unless it causes a test failure.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2222878346

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 18:39:53 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:39:53 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <3jmBibdv4ZqVjUF9FI7KNvJ2H3siKn2H-WivoPRaWXw=.f399ac98-c29d-46a2-9c39-7ec5cd691623@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <3jmBibdv4ZqVjUF9FI7KNvJ2H3siKn2H-WivoPRaWXw=.f399ac98-c29d-46a2-9c39-7ec5cd691623@github.com>
Message-ID: <4YzUhJJKnuwc6-nZe7m-PHszEBfhGhb4s2YRW-DmTc0=.27cf04dd-69f6-492e-ae6f-5a001740c877@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:06:49 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I did a quick scan and the updates to the conf, the removal, and the test changes look okay. Happy to review the CSR when you have it ready.

Thanks. The CSR is now ready to review: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8362628

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#issuecomment-3104282605

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 18:47:00 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:47:00 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
Message-ID: <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:13:44 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
>> 
>> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
>> 
>> 
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
>> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list
>> 
>> 
>> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.
>
> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testModules/jdk/element-list line 305:
> 
>> 303: jdk.jshell.spi
>> 304: jdk.jshell.tool
>> 305: module:jdk.jsobject
> 
> There is a similar pair in test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list.
> Can it be removed? Unless it causes a test failure.

I wondered about that, and originally was going to remove it, but then noticed that the test in question parses the JDK 17 API docs (which does have the `jdk.jsobject` module).

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/e70c702d6f864b494dc7df3eea4f1a317a3bc981/test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/TestRecordTypes.java#L55-56


    private static final String externalDocs =
        "https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api";


I suspect that the test will run just fine if I remove it. I don't mind either way. What would you recommend?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2223507650

From rriggs at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 18:51:55 2025
From: rriggs at openjdk.org (Roger Riggs)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:51:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
Message-ID: <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:44:40 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testModules/jdk/element-list line 305:
>> 
>>> 303: jdk.jshell.spi
>>> 304: jdk.jshell.tool
>>> 305: module:jdk.jsobject
>> 
>> There is a similar pair in test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list.
>> Can it be removed? Unless it causes a test failure.
>
> I wondered about that, and originally was going to remove it, but then noticed that the test in question parses the JDK 17 API docs (which does have the `jdk.jsobject` module).
> 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/e70c702d6f864b494dc7df3eea4f1a317a3bc981/test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/TestRecordTypes.java#L55-56
> 
> 
>     private static final String externalDocs =
>         "https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api";
> 
> 
> I suspect that the test will run just fine if I remove it. I don't mind either way. What would you recommend?

I ran the test and then removed those lines and the test still passed.
I'd remove them to avoiding leaving a (little) mess behind.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2223524163

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 19:43:55 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:43:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
 <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
Message-ID: <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:48:59 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I wondered about that, and originally was going to remove it, but then noticed that the test in question parses the JDK 17 API docs (which does have the `jdk.jsobject` module).
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/e70c702d6f864b494dc7df3eea4f1a317a3bc981/test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/TestRecordTypes.java#L55-56
>> 
>> 
>>     private static final String externalDocs =
>>         "https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api";
>> 
>> 
>> I suspect that the test will run just fine if I remove it. I don't mind either way. What would you recommend?
>
> I ran the test and then removed those lines and the test still passed.
> I'd remove them to avoiding leaving a (little) mess behind.

As expected, the above test passes fine if I remove the jsobject entries from `test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list`. I'll go ahead and remove them, since it seems like good cleanup.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2223678605

From kcr at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 19:53:39 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:39 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
Message-ID: <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>

> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
> 
> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
> 
> 
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
> 
> 
> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Remove jdk.jsobject from one more test

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393/files/e70c702d..2858cd3e

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26393&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26393&range=00-01

  Stats: 2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 2 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26393/head:pull/26393

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393

From rriggs at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 19:55:55 2025
From: rriggs at openjdk.org (Roger Riggs)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:55:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
Message-ID: <-GRJ-l0avR6jYVCgrpu6s1wDdNzxpfrpxDFb__T-X8M=.c8d7e16c-cc62-4fd2-a6b0-7d8f2add3871@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
>> 
>> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
>> 
>> 
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
>> 
>> 
>> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.
>
> Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Remove jdk.jsobject from one more test

look good.

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

Marked as reviewed by rriggs (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#pullrequestreview-3044678258

From iris at openjdk.org  Tue Jul 22 20:15:56 2025
From: iris at openjdk.org (Iris Clark)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:15:56 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
Message-ID: <riykbCOmZWw8xZyznbpjn_f9Zk1tppnltpXdS3jwfvo=.bdb4180d-d2c1-4bee-85fb-e6df77bfd5d6@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
>> 
>> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
>> 
>> 
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
>> 
>> 
>> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.
>
> Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Remove jdk.jsobject from one more test

Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#pullrequestreview-3044742971

From alanb at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 05:57:56 2025
From: alanb at openjdk.org (Alan Bateman)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 05:57:56 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
Message-ID: <fbETTwthRh0Si0UEVuXz19SyNsot077gwkVtOJKTnm4=.2c286921-0f84-487b-8133-4d4b3e667963@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
>> 
>> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
>> 
>> 
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
>> 
>> 
>> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.
>
> Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Remove jdk.jsobject from one more test

Marked as reviewed by alanb (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#pullrequestreview-3045747196

From alanb at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 05:57:57 2025
From: alanb at openjdk.org (Alan Bateman)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 05:57:57 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
 <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
 <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>
Message-ID: <3u6pXBfNO_0Jv6ncXqPzfEwAlMYACUs8n4hBCzVJySA=.c767eace-8e78-4449-af6a-056751167982@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:41:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I ran the test and then removed those lines and the test still passed.
>> I'd remove them to avoiding leaving a (little) mess behind.
>
> As expected, the above test passes fine if I remove the jsobject entries from `test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list`. I'll go ahead and remove them, since it seems like good cleanup.

@hns Would it be possible to confirm that it's okay to remove this from the doclet tests?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2224453194

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 14:35:59 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:35:59 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <3u6pXBfNO_0Jv6ncXqPzfEwAlMYACUs8n4hBCzVJySA=.c767eace-8e78-4449-af6a-056751167982@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
 <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
 <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>
 <3u6pXBfNO_0Jv6ncXqPzfEwAlMYACUs8n4hBCzVJySA=.c767eace-8e78-4449-af6a-056751167982@github.com>
Message-ID: <Xqh-MwvNHBO0bwlzZHe46WiJqTzGbsiid9pZort3sG4=.fa2dc115-11b4-4036-99f6-4be73fd5adf4@github.com>

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 05:55:11 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> As expected, the above test passes fine if I remove the jsobject entries from `test/langtools/jdk/javadoc/doclet/testRecordTypes/jdk17/element-list`. I'll go ahead and remove them, since it seems like good cleanup.
>
> @hns Would it be possible to confirm that it's okay to remove this from the doclet tests?

The list is used as list of external linkable modules/packages for the `-linkoffline` option. Since the list for JDK 17 the entry could be left in the list, but as the test doesn't try to link to the module removing it doesn't make any difference.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2225804491

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 15:25:01 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:25:01 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <Xqh-MwvNHBO0bwlzZHe46WiJqTzGbsiid9pZort3sG4=.fa2dc115-11b4-4036-99f6-4be73fd5adf4@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
 <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
 <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>
 <3u6pXBfNO_0Jv6ncXqPzfEwAlMYACUs8n4hBCzVJySA=.c767eace-8e78-4449-af6a-056751167982@github.com>
 <Xqh-MwvNHBO0bwlzZHe46WiJqTzGbsiid9pZort3sG4=.fa2dc115-11b4-4036-99f6-4be73fd5adf4@github.com>
Message-ID: <-6pe3kOD8As2nIe-g3ca7UPXoKKpaVBYmpDCW4VdE_o=.d530e02e-6516-4655-ac5b-a4eafa006cd8@github.com>

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:33:34 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> @hns Would it be possible to confirm that it's okay to remove this from the doclet tests?
>
> The list is used as list of external linkable modules/packages for the `-linkoffline` option. Since the list for JDK 17 the entry could be left in the list, but as the test doesn't try to link to the module removing it doesn't make any difference.

Maybe my previous comment was a bit unclear. Both options are okay, leaving the entries and removing them.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2225940174

From kcr at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 15:39:58 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:39:58 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <-6pe3kOD8As2nIe-g3ca7UPXoKKpaVBYmpDCW4VdE_o=.d530e02e-6516-4655-ac5b-a4eafa006cd8@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <39cYXy3ksJP1mbYdnC_Tz5VAJSUVx7Op43gM0Df7r7I=.77868781-e7cd-426b-b860-7bf9f7a1892b@github.com>
 <2u-KIKGxk64j-qEqoZBDCRLfmcgLVgUWpmdawQrv-Uk=.8327b9aa-d48f-4eaa-8360-4c31f9a1eba6@github.com>
 <-bXcQWNopjhUxwibF0de2l9Uc_8jZBX_qdAbY-9g3XQ=.7d704400-ac43-4486-8914-4efc735a474d@github.com>
 <kS1L5BXHrQhg2Ear1fgxGJoRFAF5_cm_mybVY2iuksQ=.e20c4f19-328a-4448-9fa0-3d53067f14d2@github.com>
 <3u6pXBfNO_0Jv6ncXqPzfEwAlMYACUs8n4hBCzVJySA=.c767eace-8e78-4449-af6a-056751167982@github.com>
 <Xqh-MwvNHBO0bwlzZHe46WiJqTzGbsiid9pZort3sG4=.fa2dc115-11b4-4036-99f6-4be73fd5adf4@github.com>
 <-6pe3kOD8As2nIe-g3ca7UPXoKKpaVBYmpDCW4VdE_o=.d530e02e-6516-4655-ac5b-a4eafa006cd8@github.com>
Message-ID: <49XysSSYVTzmKjja4l23jCkIz_gab8_qXX7eSxb2IsE=.1f07ea64-3a1b-49c6-9ef6-5b06e9616ad3@github.com>

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:22:04 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The list is used as list of external linkable modules/packages for the `-linkoffline` option. Since the list is for JDK 17 the entry could be left in the list, but as the test doesn't try to link to the module removing it doesn't make any difference.
>
> Maybe my previous comment was a bit unclear. Both options are okay, leaving the entries and removing them.

Thanks. In that case, I'll stick with the current state of the PR which removes them.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#discussion_r2225986752

From duke at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 15:42:59 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:42:59 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module [v2]
In-Reply-To: <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
 <m7OmhcC5MJM7zFl3VxU0X-9tshW6Y9muegXlo-lHUcQ=.f7cf56fe-799b-4f64-8370-9bf5248e093e@github.com>
Message-ID: <lZThqhW_oV4kZT0z239m-ztL7l-fENyyolVs3dcnqn0=.80495d5f-2e75-48ea-bc2c-d7030a16d685@github.com>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
>> 
>> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
>> 
>> 
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
>> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
>> 
>> 
>> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.
>
> Kevin Rushforth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Remove jdk.jsobject from one more test

@kevinrushforth 
Your change (at version 2858cd3e61b51f213db3265beec30d1afedf1906) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393#issuecomment-3109170206

From kcr at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 23 15:50:05 2025
From: kcr at openjdk.org (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:50:05 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module
In-Reply-To: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
References: <nT8V-hnOcSbjb57ERzbFtnGxbLg_Ph43mmVWcuE4mko=.76cb6087-7df2-408a-a6e4-8edaae204516@github.com>
Message-ID: <hx0zS7djImUSZHj8604N2mlfoMh0ecey7l8pmtfy7jQ=.c470ccd7-6b43-48fe-9478-4469b75c62a0@github.com>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:58:14 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR removes the terminally-deprecated `jdk.jsobject` module from the JDK. This module is now shipped with JavaFX, and has been since JavaFX 24.
> 
> The following files still reference `jdk.jsobject` (or the `netscape.javascript` package). They are not modified because these files reflect the state of earlier releases, which do have the `jdk.jsobject` module.
> 
> 
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-A.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-C.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-E.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-G.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-M.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.jsobject-O.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-8.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-9.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-B.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.scripting.nashorn-F.sym.txt
> src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/symbols
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-10.txt
> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/resources/releases/element-list-9.txt
> 
> 
> I have run tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests, as well as local tests with JavaFX WebView.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 594c080b
Author:    Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org>
Committer: Iris Clark <iris at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/594c080b2bde81a48ecccda85ac765218fc93856
Stats:     362 lines in 12 files changed: 0 ins; 358 del; 4 mod

8359760: Remove the jdk.jsobject module

Reviewed-by: rriggs, iris, alanb

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26393

From achung at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 00:29:13 2025
From: achung at openjdk.org (Alisen Chung)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:29:13 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
Message-ID: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>

This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

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

Commit messages:
 - update l10n

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26467&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8364089
  Stats: 90 lines in 14 files changed: 71 ins; 9 del; 10 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26467/head:pull/26467

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 16:31:11 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:31:11 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs [v3]
In-Reply-To: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
Message-ID: <LS1YyuPG3hIz1YKAVOeaExD_zTq936acHVB_Cfa1Jd4=.f0678869-0620-4196-849d-d808903b2ca5@github.com>

> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
> 
> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.03/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html) (module `java.base` only). 
> 
> Screenshots below show both themes and how to switch between them.
> 
> <img width="1155" height="743" alt="light-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d3b5703d-67d0-4f70-b8e4-39de13b74600" />
> <img width="1155" height="742" alt="dark-theme" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ab6f479b-df94-42bf-9c87-eea3978f38f1" />

Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:

 - Move theme button to main navigation menu
 - Move theme button to sub-navigation bar

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185/files/dfb3b247..a12a273c

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26185&range=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26185&range=01-02

  Stats: 203 lines in 10 files changed: 121 ins; 66 del; 16 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26185/head:pull/26185

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185

From jlu at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 16:34:58 2025
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:34:58 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
Message-ID: <r76j2NQHkxocAYYa9d5eDL_XoKTwi0Y-O0S4PQPBa0o=.53a4966d-b9de-4332-b82c-f4d40412f101@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:25:01 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

Looks good. The JBS issue will need to be set as a P2 to be eligible for backport to 25.

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/launcher_de.properties line 103:

> 101: 
> 102: # 0: string
> 103: launcher.err.cant.find.main.method=Konnte keine main(String[])- oder main()-Methode in der Klasse: {0} finden.

As we discussed, even though we used this suggestion last drop, the translation team rejected the translation.

src/jdk.jpackage/share/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/resources/MainResources_de.properties line 89:

> 87: MSG_BundlerConfigExceptionNoAdvice=Bundler {0} aufgrund eines Konfigurationsproblems ?bersprungen: {1}
> 88: MSG_BundlerRuntimeException=Bundler {0} nicht erfolgreich. Grund: {1}
> 89: MSG_BundlerFailed=Fehler: Bundler "{1}" ({0}) konnte kein Package generieren

Even though there was no change in the original, it looks like they removed this entry because it was a duplicate. We should consider filing a separate issue to have the duplicate removed in the original as well.

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

Marked as reviewed by jlu (Committer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#pullrequestreview-3056110784
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#discussion_r2231568635
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#discussion_r2231553322

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 16:46:54 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:46:54 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8342705: Add dark mode for docs [v3]
In-Reply-To: <LS1YyuPG3hIz1YKAVOeaExD_zTq936acHVB_Cfa1Jd4=.f0678869-0620-4196-849d-d808903b2ca5@github.com>
References: <TJ6cCIr9aLkEV_AsEPxMd_9DsH1HRBGsf7aX_IwaApE=.a611de8a-af53-4b84-b4cb-b3adc5247d4d@github.com>
 <LS1YyuPG3hIz1YKAVOeaExD_zTq936acHVB_Cfa1Jd4=.f0678869-0620-4196-849d-d808903b2ca5@github.com>
Message-ID: <EtWbQslzk9LG1ke93zcaYN7guxEtue_oa8lJinAFt9Y=.370d2e87-05a2-4865-97d9-194fadf9591f@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:31:11 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review an enhancement to add a dark theme to javadoc-generated API documentation. There is a new button in the top right corner that brings up a menu to switch between themes. Available options are "Light", "Dark", and "System Setting" (following the system-wide theme setting). The selected theme is stored and preserved across browser sessions.
>> 
>> Generated docs [can be viewed here](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.05/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html) (iteration 5, module `java.base` only). 
>> 
>> Screenshots below show both themes and how to switch between them.
>> 
>> <img width="1217" height="658" alt="light-theme-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6f12dff4-b698-45f8-9b1c-14ab19a41664" />
>> <img width="1216" height="654" alt="dark-theme-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ff0384ea-d098-4582-95fc-0e84a7c6ed78" />
>
> Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Move theme button to main navigation menu
>  - Move theme button to sub-navigation bar

Another iteration on this PR, moving the theme switcher icon in line with the main navigation links in the top navigation bar. 

I updated screenshots and [demo docs](https://cr.openjdk.org/~hannesw/8342705/api.05/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html).

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26185#issuecomment-3119367230

From naoto at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 17:26:55 2025
From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:26:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
Message-ID: <DAVpxfrk7RSbrseRryOh8LMEyykStSy5tLnPN4kqiUk=.d31ae25d-b093-4ad7-85e7-673191b7dba1@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:25:01 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#pullrequestreview-3056268896

From dnguyen at openjdk.org  Fri Jul 25 18:10:54 2025
From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:10:54 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
Message-ID: <6mNG6Cl0KiLoDgm1jq8nS_YaE_r2mp_dI2LmYuf1Dg8=.c050b5ea-f590-4dbb-80a8-1b7628d7db92@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:25:01 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#pullrequestreview-3056385560

From asemenyuk at openjdk.org  Mon Jul 28 16:21:57 2025
From: asemenyuk at openjdk.org (Alexey Semenyuk)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:21:57 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
Message-ID: <ht1okQrxkWG6QOaDhqlq_YxoxfM3E_fIZiog19cdumU=.931ade81-50b9-4dc2-b691-ac7685cbdbd6@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:25:01 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

Marked as reviewed by asemenyuk (Reviewer).

jpackage changes look good

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#pullrequestreview-3063629934
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#issuecomment-3128009012

From asemenyuk at openjdk.org  Mon Jul 28 16:21:58 2025
From: asemenyuk at openjdk.org (Alexey Semenyuk)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:21:58 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <r76j2NQHkxocAYYa9d5eDL_XoKTwi0Y-O0S4PQPBa0o=.53a4966d-b9de-4332-b82c-f4d40412f101@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
 <r76j2NQHkxocAYYa9d5eDL_XoKTwi0Y-O0S4PQPBa0o=.53a4966d-b9de-4332-b82c-f4d40412f101@github.com>
Message-ID: <XprKcnLnzROWX33uhmcmSWgYzCXLfKS1vRWZHbVko5k=.60b9e6d7-1fb2-44f5-ad74-f58e64cfc192@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:23:22 GMT, Justin Lu <jlu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.
>
> src/jdk.jpackage/share/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/resources/MainResources_de.properties line 89:
> 
>> 87: MSG_BundlerConfigExceptionNoAdvice=Bundler {0} aufgrund eines Konfigurationsproblems ?bersprungen: {1}
>> 88: MSG_BundlerRuntimeException=Bundler {0} nicht erfolgreich. Grund: {1}
>> 89: MSG_BundlerFailed=Fehler: Bundler "{1}" ({0}) konnte kein Package generieren
> 
> Even though there was no change in the original, it looks like they removed this entry because it was a duplicate. We should consider filing a separate issue to have the duplicate removed in the original as well.

@justin-curtis-lu the issue has been filed and resolved already - [JDK-8361697](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8361697)

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#discussion_r2237149723

From jlu at openjdk.org  Mon Jul 28 16:33:00 2025
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:33:00 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <XprKcnLnzROWX33uhmcmSWgYzCXLfKS1vRWZHbVko5k=.60b9e6d7-1fb2-44f5-ad74-f58e64cfc192@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
 <r76j2NQHkxocAYYa9d5eDL_XoKTwi0Y-O0S4PQPBa0o=.53a4966d-b9de-4332-b82c-f4d40412f101@github.com>
 <XprKcnLnzROWX33uhmcmSWgYzCXLfKS1vRWZHbVko5k=.60b9e6d7-1fb2-44f5-ad74-f58e64cfc192@github.com>
Message-ID: <y8EEf37XTMCbv3ex17Kf6nXXNHTAFOCU9wEHqnygXkY=.bbf01a07-a6ac-4a09-a914-4e6cbb0a6d58@github.com>

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:19:07 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk <asemenyuk at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/jdk.jpackage/share/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/resources/MainResources_de.properties line 89:
>> 
>>> 87: MSG_BundlerConfigExceptionNoAdvice=Bundler {0} aufgrund eines Konfigurationsproblems ?bersprungen: {1}
>>> 88: MSG_BundlerRuntimeException=Bundler {0} nicht erfolgreich. Grund: {1}
>>> 89: MSG_BundlerFailed=Fehler: Bundler "{1}" ({0}) konnte kein Package generieren
>> 
>> Even though there was no change in the original, it looks like they removed this entry because it was a duplicate. We should consider filing a separate issue to have the duplicate removed in the original as well.
>
> @justin-curtis-lu the issue has been filed and resolved already - [JDK-8361697](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8361697)

Thanks, I missed that.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467#discussion_r2237188811

From achung at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 01:59:10 2025
From: achung at openjdk.org (Alisen Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 01:59:10 GMT
Subject: Integrated: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
References: <NdtpGKmo--0qlPalyQddD6a-dIC5XRIoULHSSrnVGrY=.bd888aca-843a-4ec5-91c2-010ad313f593@github.com>
Message-ID: <SikYgrKEa81qT9eL-M4o94o8JAkVv3CyZAuk2iHi9-Q=.da234125-164d-4bbb-992a-73182fa5a8e9@github.com>

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:25:01 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This issue is responsible for updating the translations of all the localize(able) resources in the JDK since the previous L10n drop.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: c671089d
Author:    Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc
Stats:     90 lines in 14 files changed: 71 ins; 9 del; 10 mod

8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update

Reviewed-by: jlu, naoto, dnguyen, asemenyuk

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26467

From achung at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 02:19:34 2025
From: achung at openjdk.org (Alisen Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 02:19:34 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
Message-ID: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>

8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26543&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8364089
  Stats: 90 lines in 14 files changed: 71 ins; 9 del; 10 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26543/head:pull/26543

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543

From hannesw at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 15:41:28 2025
From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:41:28 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361316: javadoc tool fails with an exception for an inheritdoc
 on throws clause of a constructor
Message-ID: <yS1zswULmKISmKZPYRN8EexzLEI_Qu8Bspyd7yOtDHk=.38dae995-ce2d-44bf-a7cf-dd300987a673@github.com>

Please review a simple fix for a javadoc failure when `{@inheritDoc}` is placed in the `@throws` tag of a constructor. 

`{@inheritDoc}` tags in invalid locations are treated as warnings, so we add a check for the warning and ignore the `{@inheritDoc}` when rendering the `@throws` tag.

The test also checks `{@inheritDoc}` tags in a few other locations, such as field descriptions, constructor descriptions, and `@param` tags of constructors. The patch also includes some whitespace cleanup in the warning message and the existing tests.

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

Commit messages:
 - 8361316: javadoc tool fails with an exception for an inheritdoc on throws clause of a constructor

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26557/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26557&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8361316
  Stats: 93 lines in 3 files changed: 71 ins; 1 del; 21 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26557.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26557/head:pull/26557

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26557

From jlu at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 16:40:55 2025
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:40:55 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
References: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
Message-ID: <xkhUaFN8y_xbnUnDkDFSqVxm7fODAoEdtDXUscBaC8M=.d2699526-2397-4477-889a-ebf18486b1b8@github.com>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 02:12:44 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update

src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/resources/standard_de.properties line 139:

> 137: doclet.Preview_Label=Vorschau
> 138: doclet.Preview_Mark=PREVIEW
> 139: doclet.Preview_Notes=Hinweise zur Vorschau-API

The changes in this group of localized files should not be making it into JDK25 as the associated change to the original file made it into 26 and was not backported to 25.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543#discussion_r2243282750

From achung at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 19:34:17 2025
From: achung at openjdk.org (Alisen Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 19:34:17 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
References: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
Message-ID: <v0nqg3Z3nBeIQ_S-Q2flU-e-oV1J-_vOyoRf-Dbel9k=.268b6637-b992-4368-a138-2c4ae19d4a44@github.com>

> 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update

Alisen Chung has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  revert files with changes that didn't get backported

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543/files/40ddea4d..b9c25798

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26543&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26543&range=00-01

  Stats: 12 lines in 3 files changed: 3 ins; 3 del; 6 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26543/head:pull/26543

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543

From jlu at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 20:42:59 2025
From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 20:42:59 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <v0nqg3Z3nBeIQ_S-Q2flU-e-oV1J-_vOyoRf-Dbel9k=.268b6637-b992-4368-a138-2c4ae19d4a44@github.com>
References: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
 <v0nqg3Z3nBeIQ_S-Q2flU-e-oV1J-_vOyoRf-Dbel9k=.268b6637-b992-4368-a138-2c4ae19d4a44@github.com>
Message-ID: <wRuz7ThyKzfYGvsVEpePVOHrbwJfN7_xfIJhvAR3dDo=.b11192bf-411c-4986-ba1b-3d4faeddfb57@github.com>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 19:34:17 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This pull request contains a backport of commit [c671089d](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>> 
>> The commit being backported was authored by Alisen Chung on 30 Jul 2025 and was reviewed by Justin Lu, Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen and Alexey Semenyuk.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>
> Alisen Chung has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   revert files with changes that didn't get backported

Marked as reviewed by jlu (Committer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543#pullrequestreview-3073281940

From naoto at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 21:57:57 2025
From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:57:57 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] RFR: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2]
In-Reply-To: <v0nqg3Z3nBeIQ_S-Q2flU-e-oV1J-_vOyoRf-Dbel9k=.268b6637-b992-4368-a138-2c4ae19d4a44@github.com>
References: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
 <v0nqg3Z3nBeIQ_S-Q2flU-e-oV1J-_vOyoRf-Dbel9k=.268b6637-b992-4368-a138-2c4ae19d4a44@github.com>
Message-ID: <EsCNsZwCZSiVF06M0mhsDC0dovp2YHOo2W4MvT-M_m8=.0ba284f8-a0f3-46dc-9c31-1243ce6a0827@github.com>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 19:34:17 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This pull request contains a backport of commit [c671089d](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>> 
>> The commit being backported was authored by Alisen Chung on 30 Jul 2025 and was reviewed by Justin Lu, Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen and Alexey Semenyuk.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>
> Alisen Chung has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   revert files with changes that didn't get backported

Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543#pullrequestreview-3073437019

From achung at openjdk.org  Wed Jul 30 22:55:02 2025
From: achung at openjdk.org (Alisen Chung)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:55:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk25] Integrated: 8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update
In-Reply-To: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
References: <PIPIWgdCQBNP85HGvDyTg2VDsebvTiXhA9nGg_5O6P0=.b850540b-0994-48d1-af28-e68d00c01c5d@github.com>
Message-ID: <LGiHCy9E61ZKaey8M3fWSKAZGqtheCIZSsXvLVea8tQ=.e89ade9a-b054-4e01-8f45-970e9085e511@github.com>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 02:12:44 GMT, Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This pull request contains a backport of commit [c671089d](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
> 
> The commit being backported was authored by Alisen Chung on 30 Jul 2025 and was reviewed by Justin Lu, Naoto Sato, Damon Nguyen and Alexey Semenyuk.
> 
> Thanks!

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: bf31e507
Author:    Alisen Chung <achung at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/bf31e507541a8e4a352da09d0a13a8356f78a1eb
Stats:     78 lines in 11 files changed: 68 ins; 6 del; 4 mod

8364089: JDK 25 RDP2 L10n resource files update

Reviewed-by: jlu, naoto
Backport-of: c671089d6e9aa147ffd056a83c84abf6aff444dc

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26543

From nbenalla at openjdk.org  Thu Jul 31 12:24:55 2025
From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:24:55 GMT
Subject: RFR: 8361316: javadoc tool fails with an exception for an
 inheritdoc on throws clause of a constructor
In-Reply-To: <yS1zswULmKISmKZPYRN8EexzLEI_Qu8Bspyd7yOtDHk=.38dae995-ce2d-44bf-a7cf-dd300987a673@github.com>
References: <yS1zswULmKISmKZPYRN8EexzLEI_Qu8Bspyd7yOtDHk=.38dae995-ce2d-44bf-a7cf-dd300987a673@github.com>
Message-ID: <6ThtNEzCADPrO2yr9a9Kt_nYylLpYKK-tdGvrNdnLRo=.9e8a5461-a413-417d-b480-b7719a3e7ff4@github.com>

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:35:29 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer <hannesw at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review a simple fix for a javadoc failure when `{@inheritDoc}` is placed in the `@throws` tag of a constructor. 
> 
> `{@inheritDoc}` tags in invalid locations are treated as warnings, so we add a check for the warning and ignore the `{@inheritDoc}` when rendering the `@throws` tag.
> 
> The test also checks `{@inheritDoc}` tags in a few other locations, such as field descriptions, constructor descriptions, and `@param` tags of constructors. The patch also includes some whitespace cleanup in the warning message and the existing tests.

I think this looks good.

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

Marked as reviewed by nbenalla (Committer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26557#pullrequestreview-3075177059