Skip to content
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

Switched to new javadoc viewer #1519

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Rylern
Copy link
Contributor

@Rylern Rylern commented May 7, 2024

When using the new Javadoc viewer within QuPath, the redirection issue described on #1513 (comment) still happens. I'm going to see how to fix this.

@Rylern Rylern marked this pull request as ready for review May 13, 2024 12:34
@Rylern
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rylern commented May 13, 2024

When using the new Javadoc viewer within QuPath, the redirection issue described on #1513 (comment) still happens. I'm going to see how to fix this.

Fixed in the last commit

@petebankhead petebankhead added this to the v0.6.0 milestone May 24, 2024
@petebankhead
Copy link
Member

What's the correct way to run this?

I tried

./gradlew clean assembleJavadocs run

but I'm seeing

No javadocs could be found - sorry!

(in a serif font that really ought to be sans-serif)

@Rylern
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rylern commented May 24, 2024

I only checked that the Javadocs were found when creating a jpackage. The logic to find Javadocs around the executable is present in the javadoc-viewer library, so when running QuPath with Intellij, it searches around the javadoc-viewer library, not around the QuPath executable. I will move this logic from the javadoc-viewer library to QuPath.

(in a serif font that really ought to be sans-serif)

I forgot to link the QuPath stylesheet to the WebView, I'll also add this.

@Rylern
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rylern commented May 24, 2024

I fixed the two things. I updated the javadoc-viewer snapshot on maven.scijava.org so Intellij might not directly see it.

Copy link
Member

@petebankhead petebankhead left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just one small comment on the missing copyright at the top of a file

@@ -1,695 +1,110 @@
/*-
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should keep the copyright statement in every file that's part of core QuPath. If it has been completely rewritten, then we can set the year to be the current year. Otherwise we can use 2022-2024.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added in last commit

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants