Fix5 #6
Open
Fix5 #6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I have created a possible fix for Issue #5
It turns out the problem is not caused by the XML doclet, but by inconsistent processing by JavaDoc itself. If you give JD an explicit file to work with, it parses and processes the inner classes at the top level, and then again as contained elements of the outer class. If you give it a package, it only processes the inner classes as contained elements. Hence, if you add class processing to the outer class parsing, it generates two copies in some cases. To solve this, I am maintaining a keyed list of classes, within each package, by qualified name. This list refuses duplicates.