8017325, 8017326: Cleanup of javadoc <code> tag

[Nithya Srinivasan]

Jason

Can you please add the appropriate noreg- label for the 2 bugs - 
JDK-8017325 & JDK-8017326

Thanks
Nithya

On 6/25/2013 1:32 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> The javadoc changes look good to go back.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
> On 6/25/2013 1:23 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> Here are the updated webrevs:
>>
>> - java.security.cert:
>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.02/
>> - java.security.spec:
>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.01/
>>
>> I have converted "<tt>...</tt>" to "{@code ...}" and have updated the 
>> copyright dates.
>>
>> I've attached diffs of the patches to show what has been updated in 
>> these new webrevs. There is a little extra noise in them due to the 
>> change in the timestamps.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On 06/24/2013 06:11 PM, Joseph Darcy wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/24/13 10:51 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2013 6:58 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
>>>>>> After learning that javadoc is now capable of properly formatting 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "<pre>{@code ...}</pre>" construct, I have updated the changeset for
>>>>>> java.security.cert. Please review instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Webrevs --
>>>>>> - java.security.cert (updated):
>>>>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.01/
>>>>>> - java.security.spec (no change):
>>>>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked over both patches and they look fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as a follow-up, please also expand the conversion to include
>>>>> mapping "<tt>foo</tt>" => "{@code foo}".
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I can make those changes, but are you suggesting that I add
>>>> them to this changeset or that I do that separately?
>>>
>>> For review purposes, I'd like to see them separately in some fashion,
>>> even if it was produced by diffing the patch files.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that this change does visibly change the generated javadoc, as
>>>>>> reported by specdiff. In particular, the change to <pre>{@code
>>>>>> ...}</pre> in the javadoc for the
>>>>>> X509Extension.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs() method now allows the
>>>>>> generated HTML to correctly display the line:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Set<String> nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which was previously (incorrectly) displayed as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Set nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> when the text "<String>" was still enclosed within
>>>>>> "<pre><code>...</code></pre>".
>>>>>
>>>>> Running specdiff is a good double-check in this situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the scripts you are using here to placed somewhere in the JDK
>>>>> repo or in the code tools project?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that I follow. Are you requesting that I include
>>>> somewhere in the repo the line of Perl that I ran? (It was used to
>>>> make most, but not all of these changes.) If so, where would be the
>>>> most appropriate place to add that?
>>>
>>> If it is a one-liner, it could be included in the summary line of the
>>> commit message or as a comment in the bug. If it is more substantive
>>> (since we will be rolling out this change across the JDK libraries),
>>> having the command in a known-location would be helpful. Especially, if
>>> a check for this pattern is built into future code-quality checks.
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The files that have been updated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/13 5:47 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
>>>>>>> Joe, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could I please get a review of the following changes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These changesets convert the <code>...</code> javadoc tags to 
>>>>>>> {@code
>>>>>>> ...} as part of an overall effort to clean up doclint warnings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Webrevs --
>>>>>>> - java.security.cert:
>>>>>>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.00/
>>>>>>> - java.security.spec:
>>>>>>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specdiff reported no changes in the generated docs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More of these to come.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>