[MJAVADOC-658] The fix operation deletes generic functions's generic-class javadoc if exist, and add it if lack, and will not create it if param part of javadoc be empty

• Type: Bug
• Status: Closed
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Fix Version/s: 3.3.0
• Component/s: fix
• Assignee: Elliotte Rusty Harold
• Reporter: Jin Xu
• Created: 20/Aug/20 15:17
• Updated: 20/Apr/21 14:53
• Resolved: 29/Aug/20 12:05

Description

fixed in https://github.com/apache/maven-javadoc-plugin/pull/55

original function:

    public <T extends Object> void testGeneric(Class<T> tClass, Object o) {
        return;
    }

after running "fix", we get:

    /**
     * <p>testGeneric.</p>
     *
     * @param tClass a {@link java.lang.Class} object.
     * @param o a {@link java.lang.Object} object.
     * @param <T> a T object.
     */
    public <T extends Object> void testGeneric(Class<T> tClass, Object o) {
        return;
    }

after running "fix" another time, we get:

    /**
     * <p>testGeneric.</p>
     *
     * @param tClass a {@link java.lang.Class} object.
     * @param o a {@link java.lang.Object} object.
     */
    public <T extends Object> void testGeneric(Class<T> tClass, Object o) {
        return;
    }

after running "fix" the third time, we get:

    /**
     * <p>testGeneric.</p>
     *
     * @param tClass a {@link java.lang.Class} object.
     * @param o a {@link java.lang.Object} object.
     * @param <T> a T object.
     */
    public <T extends Object> void testGeneric(Class<T> tClass, Object o) {
        return;
    }

again.

and if we run fix for another time, it will continue the loop.

so do we really need

@param <T> a T object.

?

If not, then it is wrongly added.
If so, then it is wrongly deleted.
Be a bug either way.

Issue Links

• links to: GitHub Pull Request #55