-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
8336041: Doccheck: the jfr command doesn't show the correct command-line options #22247
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
Conversation
👋 Welcome back nbenalla! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@nizarbenalla This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 221 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
@nizarbenalla The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
I would like to understand why it is necessary to do this. I cannot find any documentation to say that |
It seems that the left angle bracket character is used to denote the start of HTML tags, if you want to use the literal https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#autoescape It seems that everything between < and > disappears because it looks like the beginning of an illegal HTML tag. FWIW typing ![]() ![]() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for that info @nizarbenalla . It does make me wonder however whether perhaps we should be using code blocks for these syntax fragments so that they do get auto-escaped?
But that can be a future enhancement.
Thanks
Using code blocks or other tools such as a markdown viewer when updating these files could help avoid such bugs. I'll issue the |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 029ace0.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@nizarbenalla Pushed as commit 029ace0. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
After JDK-8344056, we can now easily fix these typos that caused errors when rendering the HTML.
While I didn't find anything in the markdown spec mentioning escaping angle brackets, this stackoverflow answer says that we should use HTML entities for angle brackets. Otherwise the content inside
<>
is not shown. Doing so seems to fix the bug in the generated HTML.The output of the man pages is also broken (you can verify on your local machines as this bug exists exists in older JDKs)
Before:
After:
Here is the diff in the HTML after the change
Here is the diff between the two troff files
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22247/head:pull/22247
$ git checkout pull/22247
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/22247
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22247/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 22247
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 22247
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22247.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment