-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 351
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: fix javadoc #2300
refactor: fix javadoc #2300
Conversation
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ | |||
/** | |||
* implementation of {@link RoleHandler}, which handles attributes of type <V> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You missed a V here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It says that it handles attributes of type V but there is no type V defined in the class signature now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Class signature is: abstract class SingleHandler<T, U> extends AbstractRoleHandler<T, U, U>
so why 'V' should be documented?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It should not but currently the comment is the following:
[...] which handles attributes of type <V>
So V or <V>
is currently documented and should not be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, now it is not documented.
@pvojtechovsky could you answer for those ones?
yes
Not sure to understand the question: what do you mean about adding one more U? |
@param pep pair of parameter and element which has to be transformed
@param parameterInfo describes a to be printed pattern parameter
new comment is correct.
No, one U is enough. |
@pvojtechovsky |
@surli |
it is a type/class of to be generated element |
@pvojtechovsky |
@surli
I corrected some Javadoc errors. Please review it deeply and suggest missing information. Thanks!
PatternParameterConfigurator.java -> I removed non-existing parameters. What is pep?DefaultGenerator.java -> There is no class GeneratorImpl. Should it be a Generator?-> yesPatternPrinter.java -> I removed non-existing parameters. What is parameterInfo?ElementNode.java -> roleHandler changed to role. Check full doc of this method please.SingleHandler.java -> I removed non-existing V. Added U. Should I add one more U?I am ready to merge.