Skip to content

Checkstyle: Replaced property scope with new accessModifiers for JavadocVariable check #1241

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 31, 2025

Conversation

kkoutsilis
Copy link
Contributor

As per upcoming changes in checkstyle/checkstyle#16049 for JavadocVariable check, this PR replaces scope with new accessModifiers property.

As the behavior of the check has changed to not account for the surrounding scope, some javadocs had to be added.

Note

This PR should be merged after the release of checkstyle 10.22.0

@romani
Copy link
Contributor

romani commented Mar 30, 2025

https://checkstyle.sourceforge.io/releasenotes.html#Release_10.22.0

during version bump for checkstyle, this PR should be merged

@romani
Copy link
Contributor

romani commented Mar 30, 2025

@tmortagne , do you update versions by dependabot ?

@tmortagne
Copy link
Member

tmortagne commented Mar 31, 2025

@tmortagne , do you update versions by dependabot ?

We are using Renovate for dependencies and plugins, but yes, we got a pull request yesterday, apparently. Will take care of that ASAP (probably later today or tomorrow).

I had prepared https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XCOMMONS-3263 with a mention for this issue, but thanks for the reminder :)

@tmortagne tmortagne merged commit 376f95d into xwiki:master Mar 31, 2025
1 check passed
@tmortagne
Copy link
Member

master build is now running (fine, apparently) with Checkstyle 10.22.0.

Thanks for the help @kkoutsilis and @romani !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Cannot be done yet (there is a regression, some other dep needs to be upgraded first, etc.)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants