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

Fixing CSS for Javadocs #2415

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 6, 2014
Merged

Fixing CSS for Javadocs #2415

merged 5 commits into from
May 6, 2014

Conversation

hflynn
Copy link
Contributor

@hflynn hflynn commented May 1, 2014

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 1, 2014

Looks correct to me

@jburel jburel added the dev_5_0 label May 1, 2014
@jburel
Copy link
Member

jburel commented May 2, 2014

same as yesterday see screenshot
page

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 2, 2014

This will need merged hflynn#1 before the changes make it to the builds.

@hflynn
Copy link
Contributor Author

hflynn commented May 2, 2014

Sorry, completely forgot about that yesterday, I didn't get an email notification. Merged now!

@bpindelski
Copy link

The URL to look at is http://ci.openmicroscopy.org/job/OMERO-5.0-merge-ice34/ (or any other Ice version). There it looks less broken than it used to (although the menu is still weird - occupying two rows):
screen shot 2014-05-05 at 09 24 43

I'm a bit surprised to see that the parent job has the Javadoc still broken (http://ci.openmicroscopy.org/job/OMERO-5.0-merge-daily/javadoc/?):
screen shot 2014-05-05 at 09 25 53

In general, this looks like requiring some investigation. If the strange rendering is Jenkins' fault, then this can be merged as-is.

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 5, 2014

Problem is the two jobs are running different version of javadoc so the HTML they produce is different.

Now broken with this PR:
-
Now working with this PR:
+

There are lots of differences in the html it has produced.

This could be why the menu stopped working in the first place.

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 5, 2014

Oh the reason for the menu layout is each page has between 2 and 4 menus depending how deep into the docs you are.

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 5, 2014

It seems that javadoc does not have a separate version. It simply has the same version as that of the java compiler. You can get it using javadoc -J-version

@bpindelski
Copy link

@qidane I think it's fair to expect the created Javadoc looking fine on Java 1.6 and up. Maybe there is some common, simpler CSS which would work in both cases?

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 5, 2014

The html for the 1.6 java is not good. It looks to be invalid and missing end tags so getting the styling to work is a pain.

@qidane
Copy link
Contributor

qidane commented May 5, 2014

@bpindelski Unfortunately not a simpler CSS, this is a nasty combination of the two that I tweaked to not interfere with each other. There are a couple of limitations but both I think look ok.

@bpindelski
Copy link

@qidane All looks good now. Javadoc renders nicely. Good to merge.

Question to @sbesson : I noticed that http://ci.openmicroscopy.org/job/OMERO-5.0-merge-ice35/ doesn't build the Javadocs. Is that intentional?

@hflynn
Copy link
Contributor Author

hflynn commented May 6, 2014

--rebased-to #2453

@sbesson
Copy link
Member

sbesson commented May 6, 2014

@bpindelski: looking at the job, the Javadoc is produced by the build target (see http://ci.openmicroscopy.org/job/OMERO-5.0-merge-ice35/ws/src/dist/docs/api/index.html) but is not published via the Javadoc step. No intentional skip here. I re-added the Javadoc publishing step.

@bpindelski
Copy link

@sbesson Thanks 👍

sbesson added a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2014
@sbesson sbesson merged commit 81feba8 into ome:dev_5_0 May 6, 2014
@hflynn hflynn deleted the javadoc-css branch April 2, 2015 14:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants