I have a workaround now that shouldn't work. I'll update the site and
make the 3.2.0 announcement.

We still need to fix this longer term...if that means moving to full
jpms in 4.x.... I guess?

Thank you, Nicholas, and all who helped!

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:39 PM Nicholas DiPiazza
<nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> same i tried all the suggestions around no luck. i think i can fire up the
> debugger in the javadoc calls and shed some light
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 11:34 AM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Not working for me... although I tried. :D
> >
> > I also tried commenting out all of our automatic-module-names, and I
> > had no luck. :/
> >
> > Creating an aggregated report for both named and unnamed modules is
> > not possible.
> > [ERROR] Ensure that every module has a module descriptor or is a jar
> > with a MANIFEST.MF containing an Automatic-Module-Name.
> > [ERROR] Fix the following projects:
> >
> > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:52 AM Nicholas DiPiazza
> > <nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > As suggested in OpenJDK issue tracker
> > > <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212233> this can be worked
> > > around with defining source on Javadoc plugin:
> > >
> > > <plugin>
> > >     <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> > >     <artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId>
> > >     <configuration>
> > >         <source>8</source>
> > >     </configuration></plugin>
> > >
> > >
> > > <https://stackoverflow.com/a/60322437/1174024>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 7:32 PM Nicholas DiPiazza <
> > > nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > sorry
> > > >
> > > > <parent-project>/target/site/apidocs/
> > > >
> > > > i see that is empty
> > > > hmmm will dig
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 6:52 PM Nicholas DiPiazza <
> > > > nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> merged https://github.com/apache/tika/pull/2223
> > > >>
> > > >> mvn clean install javadoc:javadoc javadoc:aggregate -DskipTests=true
> > > >>
> > > >> works for me
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 5:02 PM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Just a drive by suggestion, but you may want to see what
> > > >>> `javadoc:aggregate-jar` does for you. After that a ChatGPT session
> > might
> > > >>> help.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best,
> > > >>> Dave
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > On May 28, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> and now it ran, however no javadoc file was generated. (which is
> > also
> > > >>> mentioned in TIKA-4318)
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Y, that's the main problem. I expect the aggregated javadocs at the
> > > >>> > main level `target/reports/apidocs/`
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > After Nicholas' PR, I run: `mvn javadoc:aggregate` in main, and I
> > > >>> > still get the CheckReturnValue error/failure.
> > > >>> > I can avoid that with: `mvn clean package javadoc:aggregate`, but
> > > >>> > then, as Tilman notes, there are no reports aggregated at the
> > project
> > > >>> > level.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > What's frustrating is that javadoc:aggregate is cheerfully
> > reporting
> > > >>> > that it is skipping the overall `tika` project:
> > > >>> > ```
> > > >>> >   --- javadoc:3.11.2:aggregate (default-cli) @ tika ---
> > > >>> >   [INFO] Skipping
> > > >>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:3.11.2:aggregate
> > report
> > > >>> > goal
> > > >>> >   ```
> > > >>> > I can't figure out why it is skipping the overall project.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM Nicholas DiPiazza
> > > >>> > <nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> i tried this
> > > >>> >> https://github.com/apache/tika/pull/2222/files
> > > >>> >> how do i tell if i fixed the issue?
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:37 PM Tilman Hausherr <
> > > >>> thaush...@t-online.de>
> > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>> I added this in the pom of grpc:
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>     <dependency>
> > > >>> >>>         <groupId>com.google.errorprone</groupId>
> > > >>> >>> <artifactId>error_prone_annotations</artifactId>
> > > >>> >>>     </dependency>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>> and now it ran, however no javadoc file was generated. (which is
> > also
> > > >>> >>> mentioned in TIKA-4318)
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>> Tilman
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>> On 5/28/2025 9:24 PM, Tilman Hausherr wrote:
> > > >>> >>>> On 5/28/2025 9:17 PM, Oleg Tikhonov wrote:
> > > >>> >>>>> Honestly I could not understand what is wrong. Can you please
> > > >>> explain
> > > >>> >>>>> what is not working?
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>> I think he meant javadoc:aggregate. I tried it myself and it did
> > > >>> fail
> > > >>> >>>> in grpc:
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO] --- compiler:3.14.0:compile (default-compile) @
> > tika-grpc ---
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO] Recompiling the module because of changed source code.
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO] Compiling 29 source files with javac [debug deprecation
> > > >>> release
> > > >>> >>>> 11] to target\classes
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO]
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>>
> > /XXXXXX/tika3/tika-grpc/src/main/java/org/apache/tika/pipes/grpc/ExpiringFetcherStore.java:
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>> Some input files use unchecked or unsafe operations.
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO]
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>>
> > /XXXXXX/tika3/tika-grpc/src/main/java/org/apache/tika/pipes/grpc/ExpiringFetcherStore.java:
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>> Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> >>>> [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR :
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> >>>> [ERROR] cannot access
> > > >>> com.google.errorprone.annotations.CheckReturnValue
> > > >>> >>>>  class file for
> > com.google.errorprone.annotations.CheckReturnValue
> > > >>> >>>> not found
> > > >>> >>>> [INFO] 1 error
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>> >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> >

Reply via email to