Skip to content
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

docs: Quick Javadoc fixes. #6943

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Apr 7, 2020
Merged

docs: Quick Javadoc fixes. #6943

merged 14 commits into from
Apr 7, 2020

Conversation

GPopZach
Copy link
Contributor

@GPopZach GPopZach commented Apr 1, 2020

Added @code tag wherever < or > were used, also removed a few
self-closing

tags. Both of these issues cause errors with the latest
version of Javadoc.

Signed-off-by: Zachary Trant zach@graalonline.com

Added @code tag wherever < or > were used, also removed a few
self-closing <p> tags. Both of these issues cause errors with the latest
version of Javadoc.

Signed-off-by: Zachary Trant <zach@graalonline.com>
Copy link
Member

@akarnokd akarnokd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are internal or test files which are exempt from the JavaDocs generation.

Comment on lines 24 to 25
* {@code Single<Integer> single = Flowable.range(1, 10).reduce((a, b) -> a + b);}
* {@code Flowable<Integer> flowable = single.toFlowable();}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should be part of the same code block

Comment on lines 24 to 25
* {@code Single<Integer> single = Maybe.just(1).isEmpty();}
* {@code Maybe<Integer> maybe = single.toMaybe();}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should be part of the same code block.

Comment on lines 24 to 25
* {@code Single<Integer> single = Observable.range(1, 10).reduce((a, b) -> a + b);}
* {@code Observable<Integer> observable = single.toObservable();}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should be part of the same code block.

@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
* thread pool:
*
* <pre>
* Scheduler limitScheduler = Schedulers.computation().when(workers -> {
* {@code Scheduler limitScheduler = Schedulers.computation().when(workers ->} {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This breaks the formatting of the lambda body.

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
* to the second.
*
* <pre>
* Scheduler limitScheduler = Schedulers.computation().when(workers -> {
* {@code Scheduler limitScheduler = Schedulers.computation().when(workers ->} {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This breaks the formatting of the lambda body.

@@ -340,11 +340,11 @@ public void onNext(String t) {
*
* When using SynchronizedSubscriber we get this output:
*
* p1: 18 p2: 68 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation
* {@code p1: 18 p2: 68 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No reason to include "should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation" in the code block.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're correct, just did the whole line for cosmetic reasons, but I can surely remove the rest of the statement from it.

*
* When using SerializedObserver we get:
*
* p1: 1 p2: 2445261 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation
* {@code p1: 1 p2: 2445261 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No reason to include "should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation" in the code block.

@@ -341,11 +341,11 @@ public void onNext(String t) {
*
* When using SynchronizedSubscriber we get this output:
*
* p1: 18 p2: 68 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation
* {@code p1: 18 p2: 68 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No reason to include "should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation" in the code block.

*
* When using SerializedSubscriber we get:
*
* p1: 1 p2: 2445261 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation
* {@code p1: 1 p2: 2445261 => should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No reason to include "should be close to each other unless we have thread starvation" in the code block.

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ public long maxElementsFromPublisher() {

/**
* Creates an Iterable with the specified number of elements or an infinite one if
* elements > {@link Integer#MAX_VALUE}.
* {@code elements > {@link Integer#MAX_VALUE}.}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This breaks the link I think.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #6943 into 3.x will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.x    #6943      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     99.63%   99.60%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity     6666     6665       -1     
============================================
  Files           742      742              
  Lines         47220    47228       +8     
  Branches       6367     6369       +2     
============================================
- Hits          47049    47042       -7     
- Misses           54       61       +7     
- Partials        117      125       +8     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...vex/rxjava3/internal/schedulers/SchedulerWhen.java 100.00% <ø> (ø) 5.00 <0.00> (ø)
...l/operators/observable/ObservableFlatMapMaybe.java 89.43% <0.00%> (-5.64%) 2.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...tivex/rxjava3/internal/jdk8/ParallelCollector.java 93.57% <0.00%> (-4.59%) 2.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../operators/observable/ObservableFlatMapSingle.java 94.44% <0.00%> (-3.18%) 2.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...nternal/operators/observable/ObservableCreate.java 96.58% <0.00%> (-2.57%) 2.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...ernal/operators/flowable/FlowableFlatMapMaybe.java 95.85% <0.00%> (-2.08%) 2.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...tivex/rxjava3/disposables/CompositeDisposable.java 98.14% <0.00%> (-1.86%) 39.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
...ctivex/rxjava3/internal/util/QueueDrainHelper.java 98.61% <0.00%> (-1.39%) 57.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
...3/internal/operators/flowable/FlowablePublish.java 99.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%) 17.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
...ternal/operators/observable/ObservableFlatMap.java 97.87% <0.00%> (-0.31%) 3.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
... and 8 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a2128ae...47ef88e. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@GPopZach GPopZach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Took all the comments from @akarnokd into account and fixed it up,

Copy link
Contributor Author

@GPopZach GPopZach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

@akarnokd akarnokd merged commit 51de021 into ReactiveX:3.x Apr 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants