Coverage Status

coverage: 87.299%. remained the same
when pulling 9f15086 on guanchengang:typo
into 6bb9982 on mybatis:master.

Just a heads up.
I had to revert this because this change broke the Sonatype GitHub Action (which deploys SNAPSHOT builds).

I understand there is a problem with the Javadoc, but deploying snapshots is more important.
If there is a fix that does not break the deploy/release, we may be able to merge it.

FYI, this SO thread may be related.
https://stackoverflow.com/q/2290757/1261766

FYI, this SO thread may be related. https://stackoverflow.com/q/2290757/1261766

I’m not sure if there’s an effective solution in this SO thread.
@harawata
Have you seen the last comment I left on pr#3512
I think we can consider using HTML entities and <code></code>(Although this may not have code fonts in some IDEs)
image

@guanchengang ,

I saw your comment, but I haven't done any test myself.
This seems like a javadoc tool issue to me, so I would expect it to be fixed in the JDK (there is an open bug on their tracker).

I am still OK with merging a workaround if it does not break anything.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to reproduce the Github Action error without deploying the snapshot, so we might have to merge the PR to test the effect on GHA.
Please just run ./mvnw site and verify the fix in the generated HTML files before submitting a PR.

And if you are not sure, we can just leave it as is.
The problem is annoying for sure, but not critical.

@harawata ,

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to reproduce the Github Action error without deploying the snapshot, so we might have to merge the PR to test the effect on GHA.

This issue also troubles me, as it seems that it is currently not possible to perform Github Action independently.
I have submitted a new pr(#3545).
I hope it won't cause errors in Github Action. I have run ./mvnw site and verify the fix in the generated HTML files as you said.
This is an example:
image
after fixed
image

Hi @guanchengang,

I can see how you might want the github action we have for site to execute. That is branch based and very specific situation we have due to deficiencies in maven plugins during release processes where we may lose ability to publish the website so that isn't something we would generally expand out in usage. Most contributors are not generally likely to encounter site related issues such as here so I see that as more of an edge case and running 'mvn site' as noted is good enough to determine if issue is ok or not. Since you raised a new PR, that is pretty simple for us to pull and confirm before merging again.