[#IDEABKL-3386] "Declaration has javadoc problems": inspection results of type 'required javadoc is absent' should provide quickfix 'create and jump to javadoc stub'

IDEA: Backlog

"Declaration has javadoc problems": inspection results of type 'required javadoc is absent' should provide quickfix 'create and jump to javadoc stub'

Created: 20 Jul 05 12:38 Updated: 22 Jul 05 01:21

Component/s:

Code Analysis. Inspection

Affects Version/s:

None

Fix Version/s:

None

Original Estimate:	Unknown	Remaining Estimate:	Unknown	Time Spent:	Unknown
Environment:	Windows XP

Build:

3,415

Description

« Hide

In case 'required javadoc is absent' is reported for an item, the current workflow is:

double-click item to jump to source
move cursor before item as cursor is placed between modifiers and item name
type /** <return> to get the java´doc stub genererated and cursor placed inside the stub.

These three steps should be done as quickfix in one step. Additionally it would be great to be able to configure this quickfix as default quickfix for that issue type to be executed upon doubleclick of item in inspection results tree, or accessible via keyboard shorcut for selected item in inspection results tree if only one item is selected in tree.

All

Comments

Work Log

Change History

Sort Order:

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Maxim Shafirov - 20 Jul 05 16:20

The problem is quickfixes might be applied in bunch, to lot of items inspected thus leaving dummy placeholders instead of real comments.

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Thomas Raugust - 21 Jul 05 11:33

Sure, the suggested quickfix would only make sense when a single-selection is chosen in the inspection results tree and must thus be limited to be only applicable on single items and not on multiselections. But even with this linitation applied,you could then fix the javadoc issues very convenient by:

jumping to next issue using Ctrl-Alt-CursorDown
-inserting the stub using a keyboard shortcut (perhaps Ctrl-Alt-Enter)
-type your documentation
go to next issue by Ctrl-Alt-CursorDown

and this would IMHO be a great enhancement compared to the support currently available for this kind of inspection issue, i.e. would be better than no support at all.