From acobbs at openjdk.org Thu Jan 2 19:04:57 2025 From: acobbs at openjdk.org (Archie Cobbs) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:04:57 GMT Subject: RFR: 8343481: Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations (kulla) [v8] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Please review this patch which removes unnecessary `@SuppressWarnings` annotations. Archie Cobbs 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 12 additional commits since the last revision: - Bump copyright year to 2025. - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Revert changes to files imported from JLine to minimize diffs. - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Update copyright years. - Merge branch 'master' into SuppressWarningsCleanup-kulla - Remove two more "this-escape" supressions. - ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/d1a9ae7e...2cb54a51 ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855/files - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855/files/2128cc37..2cb54a51 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21855&range=07 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=21855&range=06-07 Stats: 33411 lines in 3065 files changed: 22079 ins; 4632 del; 6700 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21855/head:pull/21855 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855 From hannesw at openjdk.org Wed Jan 8 20:30:11 2025 From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:30:11 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules Message-ID: Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. ------------- Commit messages: - 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22980&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8347123 Stats: 107 lines in 39 files changed: 45 ins; 0 del; 62 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22980/head:pull/22980 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980 From duke at openjdk.org Wed Jan 15 22:30:45 2025 From: duke at openjdk.org (duke) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 22:30:45 GMT Subject: Withdrawn: 8344191: Build code should not have classpath exception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:22:36 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > In several (most? all?) of the build system files, the copyright header includes the classpath exception. This makes no sense, and should be removed. > > I have removed the classpath exception from makefiles, autoconf, shell scripts, properties files, configuration files, IDE support files, build tools and data. > > The only places where the classpath exception is still kept in the make directory is as text strings in some build tools, which generate source code that is bundled with `src.zip`, and thus *must* have the classpath exception. > > This is a huge and autogenerated, but content-wise trivial, PR, and I know such are hard to review. I recommend looking at the entire diff file instead of checking this file-by-file in the Github web GUI. (That's bound to be a painful experience) This pull request has been closed without being integrated. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22104 From duke at openjdk.org Wed Jan 15 22:48:49 2025 From: duke at openjdk.org (duke) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 22:48:49 GMT Subject: Withdrawn: 8343481: Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations (kulla) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:56:54 GMT, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Please review this patch which removes unnecessary `@SuppressWarnings` annotations. This pull request has been closed without being integrated. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21855 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 22:34:45 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:34:45 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update Message-ID: Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. ------------- Commit messages: - init Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23184&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8347498 Stats: 93 lines in 26 files changed: 33 ins; 15 del; 45 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/head:pull/23184 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184 From dnguyen at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 22:41:36 2025 From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:41:36 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 80: > 78: err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden > 79: err.empty.module.path=Kein Modul im Modulpfad "{0}" mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH gefunden > 80: err.limit.modules=--limit-modules nicht mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH zul?ssig I see German has more being changed when compared to Japanese & Chinese. Are these updated translations for German specifically? I see no related change for the other 2 languages for say `err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime`. src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jmod/resources/jmod_de.properties line 60: > 58: main.opt.target-platform.arg=target-platform > 59: main.opt.module-path=Modulpfad > 60: main.opt.hash-modules=Berechnet und erfasst Hashes zur Bindung eines verpackten Moduls an Module, die dem angegebenen entsprechen und direkt oder indirekt davon abh?ngen. Die Hashes werden in der erstellten JMOD-Datei oder in einer JMOD- oder modularen JAR-Datei in dem Modulpfad erfasst, der im jmod-Hashbefehl angegeben ist. I assume this is more evidence that the German differences are just updated translations for German? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1920837067 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1920837417 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 22:44:36 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:44:36 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:37:35 GMT, Damon Nguyen wrote: >> Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. >> >> Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. >> >> Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > > src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 80: > >> 78: err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden >> 79: err.empty.module.path=Kein Modul im Modulpfad "{0}" mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH gefunden >> 80: err.limit.modules=--limit-modules nicht mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH zul?ssig > > I see German has more being changed when compared to Japanese & Chinese. Are these updated translations for German specifically? I see no related change for the other 2 languages for say `err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime`. Yes, see the other comment. > src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jmod/resources/jmod_de.properties line 60: > >> 58: main.opt.target-platform.arg=target-platform >> 59: main.opt.module-path=Modulpfad >> 60: main.opt.hash-modules=Berechnet und erfasst Hashes zur Bindung eines verpackten Moduls an Module, die dem angegebenen entsprechen und direkt oder indirekt davon abh?ngen. Die Hashes werden in der erstellten JMOD-Datei oder in einer JMOD- oder modularen JAR-Datei in dem Modulpfad erfasst, der im jmod-Hashbefehl angegeben ist. > > I assume this is more evidence that the German differences are just updated translations for German? Yes, there were standalone German translation updates. Some were also reverts to fixes we made last time for German translations specifically, as they were rejected by the translation team. In any case, I think it is probably best not to deviate from their translations unless they are incorrect. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1920839939 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1920839823 From dnguyen at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 22:56:36 2025 From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:56:36 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. File changes LGTM. ------------- Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2560114901 From dnguyen at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 22:56:37 2025 From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:56:37 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:42:05 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: >> src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jmod/resources/jmod_de.properties line 60: >> >>> 58: main.opt.target-platform.arg=target-platform >>> 59: main.opt.module-path=Modulpfad >>> 60: main.opt.hash-modules=Berechnet und erfasst Hashes zur Bindung eines verpackten Moduls an Module, die dem angegebenen entsprechen und direkt oder indirekt davon abh?ngen. Die Hashes werden in der erstellten JMOD-Datei oder in einer JMOD- oder modularen JAR-Datei in dem Modulpfad erfasst, der im jmod-Hashbefehl angegeben ist. >> >> I assume this is more evidence that the German differences are just updated translations for German? > > Yes, there were standalone German translation updates. Some were also reverts to fixes we made last time for German translations specifically, as they were rejected by the translation team. In any case, I think it is probably best not to deviate from their translations unless they are incorrect. Makes sense. I agree then. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1920847170 From naoto at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 23:08:35 2025 From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:08:35 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were *published* in 2024? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2599351096 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 23:21:35 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:21:35 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3jNTKD4ifvL8RtWl-nr2Jl_QjSv4ohkQnjf2MMo-M-w=.832c9b8f-0fe4-4851-96ce-89e979f228b4@github.com> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were _published_ in 2024? I noticed that too. Those copyrights are automatically updated by the translation team. Since the English changes were made in 2024, it seems reasonable that the corresponding l10n changes also have a copyright year of 2024. Conceptually I'm treating it like a backport, where the copyright year should reflect the year of the original change, not the current year. But these are different cases of course, please let me know if I should change it to 2025, I am not fully sure in this scenario. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2599361579 From dnguyen at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 23:21:35 2025 From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:21:35 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <3jNTKD4ifvL8RtWl-nr2Jl_QjSv4ohkQnjf2MMo-M-w=.832c9b8f-0fe4-4851-96ce-89e979f228b4@github.com> References: <3jNTKD4ifvL8RtWl-nr2Jl_QjSv4ohkQnjf2MMo-M-w=.832c9b8f-0fe4-4851-96ce-89e979f228b4@github.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:18:43 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were _published_ in 2024? I saw the same but forgot to mention it after looking up the original files to compare to German. I'm also not sure if this should be 2024 vs 2025. I'd assume 2024 since most of the files say "edited on Dec 2024", but not sure if it's based on the original file's date or this translated file. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2599361641 From naoto at openjdk.org Fri Jan 17 23:55:37 2025 From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:55:37 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. IANAL, but my understanding is that it reflects the year the last change was open to the public. It does not seem to matter from copyright point if the file is a translation of English one or not. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2599385743 From jlu at openjdk.org Tue Jan 21 18:05:35 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:05:35 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:53:06 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote: > IANAL, but my understanding is that it reflects the year the last change was open to the public. It does not seem to matter from copyright point if the file is a translation of English one or not. While that has been my understanding as well, for L10n specifically we have always reflected the original English file year in the localized copyright. For example, I believe most (if not all) of the other files included in this PR have a 2024 copyright years, not just those .java XML files. I am fine if we make this switch, but it will be a departure from how we have normally done it for the L10n process. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2605409150 From naoto at openjdk.org Tue Jan 21 18:31:37 2025 From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:31:37 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > While that has been my understanding as well, for L10n specifically we have always reflected the original English file year in the localized copyright Yes. I think it is probably time to assure it really is the case. Since we are following the procedure, I approve the changes. ------------- Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2565411176 From joehw at openjdk.org Tue Jan 21 19:15:38 2025 From: joehw at openjdk.org (Joe Wang) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:15:38 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. java.xml changes look good. ------------- Marked as reviewed by joehw (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2565493674 From prr at openjdk.org Tue Jan 21 19:44:42 2025 From: prr at openjdk.org (Phil Race) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:44:42 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:13:50 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: > Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. > > [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 > > For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. > > Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. src/java.datatransfer/share/classes/java/awt/datatransfer/DataFlavor.java line 1288: > 1286: > 1287: /** > 1288: * Serializes this {@code DataFlavor}. This most definitely changes the serialisation spec. So a CSR is needed. Also shouldn't readExternal be updated to correspond ? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#discussion_r1924275958 From hannesw at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 09:25:43 2025 From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:25:43 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:41:39 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. >> >> [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 >> >> For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. >> >> Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. > > src/java.datatransfer/share/classes/java/awt/datatransfer/DataFlavor.java line 1288: > >> 1286: >> 1287: /** >> 1288: * Serializes this {@code DataFlavor}. > > This most definitely changes the serialisation spec. So a CSR is needed. > Also shouldn't readExternal be updated to correspond ? Only the `writeExternal` method is required to have a `@serialData` tag in order to keep javadoc running with `-serialwarn` option from complaining. I guess the thinking is that the `readExternal` logic can be derived from that. @prrace do you have any suggestions for the spec change, or are you ok with the proposed wording? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#discussion_r1924979277 From sgehwolf at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 17:15:55 2025 From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:15:55 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. I only looked at the jlink changes which look fine to me. Fine to keep with/without the suggestion. src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 78: > 76: err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde ge?ndert > 77: err.runtime.link.patched.module=jlink unterst?tzt keine Verkn?pfung vom Laufzeitimage unter einer gepatchten Laufzeit mit --patch-module > 78: err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden Suggestion: err.no.module.path=--module-path Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden ------------- Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2567811411 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1925680330 From jlu at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 18:39:47 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:39:47 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: reflect jlink review ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184/files - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184/files/5ea5ddc9..cc8b23fb Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23184&range=01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23184&range=00-01 Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/head:pull/23184 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184 From asemenyuk at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 18:39:48 2025 From: asemenyuk at openjdk.org (Alexey Semenyuk) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:39:48 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:34:46 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: >> Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. >> >> Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. >> >> Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > > Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > reflect jlink review jpackage changes look good. ------------- Marked as reviewed by asemenyuk (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2567985117 From jlu at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 18:39:49 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:39:49 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:09:40 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: >> >> reflect jlink review > > src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties line 78: > >> 76: err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde ge?ndert >> 77: err.runtime.link.patched.module=jlink unterst?tzt keine Verkn?pfung vom Laufzeitimage unter einer gepatchten Laufzeit mit --patch-module >> 78: err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden > > Suggestion: > > err.no.module.path=--module-path Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden Fixed it in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23184/commits/cc8b23fb9d65a9ea603c6f7576d651f447ac2d5e. The option reads incorrect with "-Option" appended, regardless of language rules. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#discussion_r1925792014 From prr at openjdk.org Wed Jan 22 20:37:51 2025 From: prr at openjdk.org (Phil Race) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:37:51 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 09:23:10 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: >> src/java.datatransfer/share/classes/java/awt/datatransfer/DataFlavor.java line 1288: >> >>> 1286: >>> 1287: /** >>> 1288: * Serializes this {@code DataFlavor}. >> >> This most definitely changes the serialisation spec. So a CSR is needed. >> Also shouldn't readExternal be updated to correspond ? > > Only the `writeExternal` method is required to have a `@serialData` tag in order to keep javadoc running with `-serialwarn` option from complaining. I guess the thinking is that the `readExternal` logic can be derived from that. > > @prrace do you have any suggestions for the spec change, or are you ok with the proposed wording? There's not a great number of "good" examples of this in the JDK, so probably OK except it seems like most cases will do it like a normal javadoc method so you'd want an @param tag too. note : this is a desktop class, so I'm looking at this one but someone else will need to look at all the others ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#discussion_r1925928563 From jlahoda at openjdk.org Thu Jan 23 11:46:25 2025 From: jlahoda at openjdk.org (Jan Lahoda) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:46:25 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347629: Test FailOverDirectExecutionControlTest.java fails with -Xcomp Message-ID: The `FailOverDirectExecutionControlTest` test looks-up/creates a `Logger`, configures it, but it is not holding it while the test is running. As a consequence, the `Logger` may be GCed, loosing the configuration, and consequently failing the test. The proposal in this PR is to hold the configured `Logger` instance for the duration of the test. ------------- Commit messages: - 8347629: Test FailOverDirectExecutionControlTest.java fails with -Xcomp Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23265/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23265&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8347629 Stats: 4 lines in 1 file changed: 2 ins; 1 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23265.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23265/head:pull/23265 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23265 From sgehwolf at openjdk.org Thu Jan 23 13:21:47 2025 From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:21:47 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7F5pVmYefDZ12cPCDSFhBuyMJYt8x-xGaqbYruqvfTg=.e06337f6-e22e-4fb7-aec2-faaad2264365@github.com> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:39:47 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: >> Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. >> >> Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. >> >> Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > > Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > reflect jlink review jdk.jlink changes still good. ------------- Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#pullrequestreview-2569845897 From hannesw at openjdk.org Thu Jan 23 16:18:46 2025 From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:18:46 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:35:22 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Only the `writeExternal` method is required to have a `@serialData` tag in order to keep javadoc running with `-serialwarn` option from complaining. I guess the thinking is that the `readExternal` logic can be derived from that. >> >> @prrace do you have any suggestions for the spec change, or are you ok with the proposed wording? > > There's not a great number of "good" examples of this in the JDK, so probably OK except it > seems like most cases will do it like a normal javadoc method so you'd want an @param tag too. > > note : this is a desktop class, so I'm looking at this one but someone else will need to look at all the others I've created a CSR with a slightly modified version of the text proposed in this PR: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8348408 Other doc tags such as `@param` and `@throws` are inherited from the overridden method. Also, this is the only change in this PR that modifies the serialization spec. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#discussion_r1927261011 From hannesw at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 10:58:24 2025 From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:58:24 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. > > [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 > > For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. > > Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Update @serialData text to CSR-approved version ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980/files - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980/files/c4be23a7..b686fb10 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22980&range=01 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=22980&range=00-01 Stats: 2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22980/head:pull/22980 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980 From hannesw at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 14:42:47 2025 From: hannesw at openjdk.org (Hannes =?UTF-8?B?V2FsbG7DtmZlcg==?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:42:47 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:16:03 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: >> There's not a great number of "good" examples of this in the JDK, so probably OK except it >> seems like most cases will do it like a normal javadoc method so you'd want an @param tag too. >> >> note : this is a desktop class, so I'm looking at this one but someone else will need to look at all the others > > I've created a CSR with a slightly modified version of the text proposed in this PR: > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8348408 > > Other doc tags such as `@param` and `@throws` are inherited from the overridden method. Also, this is the only change in this PR that modifies the serialization spec. CSR was approved, and I updated the PR with the slightly modified spec text from the CSR. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#discussion_r1928785006 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 21:46:51 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:46:51 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:39:47 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: >> Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. >> >> Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. >> >> Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. > > Justin Lu has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > reflect jlink review Thank you all for the reviews! ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184#issuecomment-2613427519 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 21:46:52 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:46:52 GMT Subject: Integrated: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:29:15 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch. > > Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements. > > Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: dec93675 Author: Justin Lu URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea Stats: 93 lines in 26 files changed: 33 ins; 15 del; 45 mod 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update Reviewed-by: sgehwolf, dnguyen, naoto, joehw, asemenyuk ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184 From jlu at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 21:57:24 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:57:24 GMT Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update Message-ID: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. ------------- Commit messages: - Backport dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23307&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8347498 Stats: 93 lines in 26 files changed: 33 ins; 15 del; 45 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23307/head:pull/23307 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307 From dnguyen at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 22:31:46 2025 From: dnguyen at openjdk.org (Damon Nguyen) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 22:31:46 GMT Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> References: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Message-ID: <-BBvNQbrAoMMC_FayqUfV3YMlvRVWXOHVnpI6yhcuQ4=.dad22090-982f-4546-8f69-b5aef9178355@github.com> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:51:39 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. > > The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. Backport looks fine and normal to me. ------------- Marked as reviewed by dnguyen (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307#pullrequestreview-2573707535 From naoto at openjdk.org Fri Jan 24 23:08:47 2025 From: naoto at openjdk.org (Naoto Sato) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:08:47 GMT Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> References: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:51:39 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. > > The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer). ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307#pullrequestreview-2573755873 From iris at openjdk.org Sat Jan 25 01:20:59 2025 From: iris at openjdk.org (Iris Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 01:20:59 GMT Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> References: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Message-ID: <7HHGVvdg10IEwU0ntbgYFeXJ5L3btQgva7Ey3pmD83Y=.f5442616-24c2-422d-a090-9f46086b98ba@github.com> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:51:39 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. > > The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer). ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307#pullrequestreview-2573871901 From jlu at openjdk.org Mon Jan 27 17:27:53 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:27:53 GMT Subject: [jdk24] RFR: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> References: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:51:39 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. > > The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. Thanks for the reviews. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307#issuecomment-2616430340 From jlu at openjdk.org Mon Jan 27 17:27:54 2025 From: jlu at openjdk.org (Justin Lu) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:27:54 GMT Subject: [jdk24] Integrated: 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update In-Reply-To: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> References: <9eZVlXjnon7RUI2OlWNx8IwwUB9bqw4VGnjw2GMmw_Q=.b1061b6e-0d5b-4c8e-bdb1-675ba197b69c@github.com> Message-ID: <9auIj0WRflyzVXt6UFfMaOa8CzlSwgPYww5cJ13905Q=.2fa6a88b-514e-4ac6-b814-f29f58bb7005@github.com> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:51:39 GMT, Justin Lu wrote: > Please review this PR which is a backport of [dec93675](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea) that updates the l10n translations for jdk24. > > The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: a315b932 Author: Justin Lu URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/a315b9326b07a6241858c55d15e4cbec4ab3773b Stats: 93 lines in 26 files changed: 33 ins; 15 del; 45 mod 8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update Reviewed-by: dnguyen, naoto, iris Backport-of: dec93675ab3e4c271b14a254df75dc838f1346ea ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23307 From prr at openjdk.org Tue Jan 28 20:16:47 2025 From: prr at openjdk.org (Phil Race) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:16:47 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5rLwREvBwD_4oD3b2to9uvQafxCJ8XFVCXyvjxvMuIY=.198a6e8f-46fa-4b2c-8960-492d7d9f3307@github.com> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:58:24 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: >> Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. >> >> [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 >> >> For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. >> >> Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. > > Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > Update @serialData text to CSR-approved version Approving the datatransfer portion .. at least ... ------------- Marked as reviewed by prr (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#pullrequestreview-2579320786 PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#issuecomment-2619967593 From nbenalla at openjdk.org Fri Jan 31 02:08:30 2025 From: nbenalla at openjdk.org (Nizar Benalla) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 02:08:30 GMT Subject: RFR: 8347123: Add missing @serial tags to other modules [v2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:58:24 GMT, Hannes Walln?fer wrote: >> Please review a doc-only change to mostly add missing `@serial` javadoc tags. This is a sub-task of [JDK-8286931] to allow us to re-enable the javadoc `-serialwarn` option in the JDK doc build, which has been disabled since JDK 19. >> >> [JDK-8286931]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286931 >> >> For private and package-private serialized fields that already have a doc comment, the main description is converted to a block tag by prepending `@serial` since these fields do not require a main description. For protected and public serialized fields that require a main description, an empty `@serial` block tag is appended to the doc comment instead. The effect is the same, as the main description is used in `serial-form.html` if the `@serial` tag is missing or empty. For those fields that do not have a doc comment, a doc comment with an empty `@serial` tag is added. >> >> Apart from missing `@serial` tags, this PR also adds a `@serialData` tag to `java.awt.datatransfer.DataFlavor.writeExternal(ObjectOutput)` that the javadoc `-serialwarn` option complains about. This is the only change in this PR that adds documentation text and causes a change in the generated documentation. > > Hannes Walln?fer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: > > Update @serialData text to CSR-approved version Code changes make sense and the updated text matches the text from the CSR. ------------- Marked as reviewed by nbenalla (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22980#pullrequestreview-2585511820