Skip to content

[WIP] Rewrite Javadoc comments to Markdown - #14334

Closed
Strokkur424 wants to merge 2 commits into
PaperMC:mainfrom
Strokkur424:refactor/markdown-javadocs
Closed

Strokkur424 wants to merge 2 commits into
PaperMC:mainfrom
Strokkur424:refactor/markdown-javadocs

Conversation

@Strokkur424

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR serves as a reference to what a possible refactor from regular Javadoc comments (/**) to Markdown-style comments (///) might look like.

IntelliJ supports conversion from standard-style Javadoc comments to Markdown flavored ones. All changes in this PR are thus done from the IntelliJ refactor tool. This may obviously result in bugs. And with almost every single API file touched, review of this is hard.

A possible solution to this problem is to compare the old Javadoc JAR contents to the new - they should theoretically match almost 1:1. This ensures no information was lost.

One issue with the current setup is that Checkstyle does not support Markdown-style Javadoc comments. Progress on that can be tracked with the following issue: checkstyle/checkstyle#16100.

This results in the following roadmap/TODO list, before Markdown Javadoc comments can actually be considered for the API module:

  • Checkstyle support for Markdown Javadoc comments
  • The generator must be updated to emit Markdown JD comments
  • Javadoc parity must be validated

The purpose of this PR is to track these steps, while maybe encouraging discussion and opinions by both contributors and maintainers. This should have no effect on consumers of the API or server owners running Paper.

@Strokkur424
Strokkur424 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 2, 2026 14:40
@kennytv kennytv closed this Oct 2, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from Awaiting review to Closed in Paper PR Queue Oct 2, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Closed

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants