fixed paragraphs in javadoc comments #3397
Merged
+205
−183
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All Submissions:
Hello there, I'm a contributor at @checkstyle, I was working on this issue: checkstyle/checkstyle#15685, my PR: checkstyle/checkstyle#15686
The issue is about fixing JavadocParagraph's Implementation, currently the check does not work when a paragraph tag have it's corresponding closing tag (
<p></p>
), it only works when paragraph tag does not have its corresponding closing tag (<p>
). I was trying to fix this problem and during this process I also found some other bugs which I have solved in the same PR.The PR is almost ready to be merged but our semaphore CI was failing, here its error logs: https://checkstyle.semaphoreci.com/jobs/fa77db90-12db-42f2-b60f-5565630dba95
as I made changes in the JavadocParagraph's implementation and added support to check for
<p></p>
, Semaphore CI started giving error for pgjdbc repository, indicating that it has incorrect paragraph tags' placement. My mentor @romani suggested to send a PR to pgjdbc and fix the incorrect paragraphs' placement ( checkstyle/checkstyle#15686 (comment) ).I have tried to fix it in this PR. I have made changes in javadoc comments and tried to fix the incorrect placements. Our Check was not able to detect these incorrect changes previously but after my PR gets merged, this bug will get fixed and Check's newer version be available in the next release.
I hope my PR gets attention of pgjdbc's maintainers, thank you :)