8289779: Map::replaceAll javadoc has redundant @throws clauses #111
8289779: Map::replaceAll javadoc has redundant @throws clauses #111
Conversation
👋 Welcome back smarks! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@stuart-marks 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. |
Webrevs
|
* @throws NullPointerException if function or a replacement value is null, | ||
* and this map does not permit null keys or values | ||
* @throws NullPointerException if the specified function is null, or if a replacement value is null | ||
* and this map does not permit null values |
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.
This looks okay although I'd probably reflow L744-745 to avoid to keep the line lengths somewhat consistent with the other exceptions.
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 doing this, Stuart. Not only does this PR remove duplication from the Map
documentation, but it also ensures that when JDK-6509045 is integrated, that duplication won't spread to ConcurrentMap
. A bonus of this fix is that the irrelevant mention of "keys" is gone from the description of NullPointerException
.
Also, consider closing 8255426 as a duplicate.
@stuart-marks 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 9 new commits pushed to the
Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
@@ -739,21 +739,16 @@ default void forEach(BiConsumer<? super K, ? super V> action) { | |||
* @throws UnsupportedOperationException if the {@code set} operation | |||
* is not supported by this map's entry set iterator. |
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.
Maybe fix indentation here and at line 742 for the CCE for consistency?
Reflowed and adjusted whitespace. Also, Pavel wrote:
Ha! Thanks, I had forgotten about that one. Easier to file a new bug than to dig out an old one. Oh well, closed as duplicate. |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit a8eb728.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@stuart-marks Pushed as commit a8eb728. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Simple javadoc fix of an editorial nature.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk19 pull/111/head:pull/111
$ git checkout pull/111
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/111
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk19 pull/111/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 111
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 111
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk19/pull/111.diff