[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <Beans Dev> RFR: 8251123 doclint warnings about missing javadoc tags and comments

[Philip Race]

On 8/9/20, 3:16 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hello.
> Please review the fix for jdk/client.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251123
> Fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8251123/webrev.01
>
> We have a number of missing javadoc tags and comments in the desktop 
> module.
> Most of the missing comments are related to the serialized form.
>
> The fix:
>  - Adds missing comments to the non-static/non-transient fields(even 
> private) of the "serializable" classes
>  - Adds comments to the "serializable" classes even if those classes 
> are non-public
>  - Fixes references/adds missing tags to the special methods(like 
> readObject/writeObject)
>
> Also, I made additional changes:
>  - In one class to suppress the warning I have made two constants static:
>    
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8251123/webrev.01/src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/ContainerOrderFocusTraversalPolicy.java.sdiff.html

This (above) would affect the serialised form so I am not sure about the 
change

>  - Adds @Deprecated(forRemoval = true) to the PeerFixer class:
>    
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8251123/webrev.01/src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/ScrollPane.java.sdiff.html
>    I think we should delete this class, so to not missing this in 
> future I added
>    this tag, or could I delete them right now?

I can't see one or two releases making a difference relative to JDK 1.0
So right now would be fine but it still needs a CSR.
>
> I also would like to clarify the status of unused fields, like:
> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/CheckboxMenuItem.java:433: 
> warning: no comment
>     private int checkboxMenuItemSerializedDataVersion = 1;
> Could I add "@Deprecated(forRemoval = true)" to them as well, or could 
> I delete them right now?
>
>
Wouldn't that immediately break serialization w.r.t JDK 15 ?

-phil

> Note that in some cases I added the comments to the "implementation 
> details", so I did not specify it fully.
>