#71 Flexibility in requiring Javadoc

release_3.0
closed
nobody
Check (274)
5
2012-10-10
2002-05-16
Anonymous
No

It would be good to add some flexibility in when
Javadoc is required.

For example, our shop doesn't require Javadoc on
variables, but does on classes and methods.

I would suggest extending the checkstyle.javadoc.scope
property to the following:

checkstyle.javadoc.variablescope
checkstyle.javadoc.methodscope
checkstyle.javadoc.classscope

Discussion

  • Oliver Burn

    Oliver Burn - 2002-05-22

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=218824

    interesting idea - wonder if there is a way to be backwardly
    compatible. I suspect not.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    I would suggest you should also have a way to specify a
    regular expression to match for things not to do the javadoc
    check for. That way you could, for example, specify not to
    do the javadoc checking for accessor methods. I think it's
    pretty common not to require javadoc comments for simple
    accessors.

     
  • Richard Cyganiak

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=584620

    I agree to the regular expression idea. Regexes could also be used to
    make javadoc comments for JUnit test methods optional.

     
  • Oleg Sukhodolsky

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=746148

    I think the requested funcionality is implemented in 3.0 by
    JavadocType, JavadocMethod and JavadocVariable checks.

     
  • Lars Kühne

    Lars Kühne - 2003-04-18

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=401384

    Oleg is correct, the original request is implemented.

    Please enter a new request if you want regexp support (or
    better yet, provide a patch to the Javadoc* checks that
    implements it, should be really easy)

     
  • Oleg Sukhodolsky

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=746148

    I think the requested funcionality is implemented in 3.0 by
    JavadocType, JavadocMethod and JavadocVariable checks.

     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks