Often the easiest way to create a desired test scenario is to write
code that would make no sense in a complete, realistic application.
So we generally want to let test code do oddball things.
Manu requested that we use this approach instead of adding
`@SuppressWarnings("unused")` at each affected catch block. That
seems reasonable to me, given the large number of such warnings and
the lack of likely harm from ignoring such caught exceptions.
Fixing these Javadoc comments would require adding packages to various
other packages' build paths. In some of the cases suppressed,
changing build paths in that manner would create circular build
dependencies. In other cases, it would simply add a Javadoc-motivated
dependency that does not exist for the real code, which seems
undesirable. For a few cases, the reference seems to be to types in
code we don't even have here, such as code from "android" or
"org.mozilla" packages.
These changes turn off Eclipse warnings for Javadoc tags without
descriptions. In some subprojects, we turn these off entirely. In
others, leave on missing-descrption checks for "@return" tags only.
We don't turn this warning off in all projects. Rather, we turn it
off only in projects that were producing at least one such warning.
In other words, if a project was already completely "clean" with
respect to this warning, then we leave this warning enabled for that
project.
Turning off these warnings is a partial declaration of Javadoc
bankruptcy. In an ideal world, we would enable and fix all of these
warnings. However, there are 576 of them. Apparently the WALA team's
implicit coding style says that omitting descriptions is OK. If
there's no intent to systematically add descriptions, then we may as
well turn off these warnings so that we can see other warnings that we
may want to fix.
When Maven generates these "*/target/antrun/build-main.xml" Any build
scripts, it does not include any DTD or XML Schema declarations.
Eclipse's XML validator warns about the lack of grammar constraints.
The warning is sensible, but we are not in a position to do anything
about it. Better, therefore, to suppress these warnings so that we
can more-clearly see warnings we *can* address.
Some of these might have proper DTDs or XML Schema definitions
floating around somewhere that we could use. Presumably many do not.
Rather than hand-craft such definitions myself, I'm just giving each a
minimal stub DOCTYPE declaration. That's enough to satisfy Eclipse's
XML validator, which otherwise complains that these files lack grammar
constraints.
I think the "target/p2artifacts.xml" and "target/p2content.xml" files
are generated by Maven. They are well-formed XML but Eclipse's XML
validator legitimately warns that they lack grammar constraints.
Since we're not maintaining the tool that creates these files, we are
not in a position to do anything about that. Therefore, we may as
well exclude these from validation entirely. That way we can
more-clearly recognize warnings that we *can* do something about.
Ant "build.xml" files don't have a standard DTD or XML Schema; the
contents are simply too flexible for that. But we can at least
give each a stub DOCTYPE declaration. That's enough to satisfy
Eclipse's XML validator, which otherwise complains that these files
lack grammar constraints.
Most of the invalid HTML arose from bare "<" and ">" characters.
These should be escaped as "<" and ">" when not intended to
introduce HTML tags. When you have many such characters close
together, "{@literal ...}" is a nice, readable alternative that
automatically escapes its contents. If the text in question is
intended to be a code fragment, then "{@code ...}" is appropriate:
this is essentially equivalent to "<code>{@literal ...}</code>".
There were a few other HTML violations too, but none common enough to
be worth detailing here.
The contents of @author go straight into HTML, just like most other
Javadoc material. So if you want to have a "<foo@bar.com>" e-mail
address as part of the author information, the angle brackets must be
escaped. Here I've opted to do that using "{@code <foo@bar.com>}",
which has some additional styling effects that seem appropriate for
e-mail addresses. We could also have used "<foo@bar.com>" for
escaping without code styling.
Eclipse validation warns about invalid HTML content in all
Maven-generated "target/site/dependency-convergence.html" files. The
warnings are legitimate: these HTML files are indeed invalid.
However, we don't maintain the tool that generates these files, so we
are not in a position to fix them. Better, therefore, to suppress
these warnings so that we can notice and fix other problems over which
we do have control.
Ben Liblit
Manu Sridharan
Julian Dolby
Martin Hecker
Julian Dolby
Manu Sridharan
steohan
Stephan Gocht