<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Summary:&nbsp; TestSmoke is failing because
      javadoc is not documenting annotations on type parameters. I'll
      make sure Bhavesh knows about this.<br>
      <br>
      -- Jon<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 04/25/2013 02:03 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:51799A05.1010602@oracle.com" type="cite">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
        http-equiv="Content-Type">
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/24/2013 09:51 PM, Jonathan
        Gibbons wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote cite="mid:5178B66A.2010704@oracle.com" type="cite"><br>
        javadoc is believed done, so TestSmoke should be investigated. <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      So, I'm looking at TestSmoke.&nbsp;&nbsp; If nothing else, I will shortly
      push a changeset with minor cleanup, including to sort the test
      cases into hex-numerical order.&nbsp; But in so doing I noticed this:<br>
      <br>
      <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/file/ac33d03e35b8/test/com/sun/javadoc/typeAnnotations/smoke/pkg/TargetTypes.java">http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/file/ac33d03e35b8/test/com/sun/javadoc/typeAnnotations/smoke/pkg/TargetTypes.java</a><br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity0">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       39</span> @Target({TYPE_USE})
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity1">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       40</span> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity0">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       41</span> @interface A {}
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity1">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       42</span> 
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity0">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       43</span> @Target({TYPE_USE})
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity1">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       44</span> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity0">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       45</span> @Documented
</pre>
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:monospace" class="parity1">
          <pre><span class="linenr">       46</span> @interface DA {}
</pre>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      Generally, DA is typically used to represent "declaration
      annotation", so it seems strange to see a target of TYPE_USE on an
      annotation called DA.<br>
      <br>
      Also, it seems that the test cases in this file use numbering with
      holes in, that seems similar but not identical to the enum
      constants in TargetType.&nbsp; Should we cross-check and.or rationalize
      these constants?<br>
      <br>
      -- Jon<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>