8017325, 8017326: Cleanup of javadoc <code> tag

[Jason Uh]

Nithya,

Thanks for catching that. I've labeled the bugs with noreg-doc.

Jason

On 6/25/13 9:25 PM, Nithya Srinivasan wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>