[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-417?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17581916#comment-17581916
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on MPLUGIN-417:
----------------------------------------
rfscholte commented on PR #139:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugin-tools/pull/139#issuecomment-1220800807
I think I get your point regarding the context. Based on that it is indeed
fine to use HTML as content for the plugin descriptor. Just make sure there's a
test that requires this context, as it is the critical part of this solution.
> report and descriptor goal need to evaluate Javadoc comments differently
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MPLUGIN-417
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPLUGIN-417
> Project: Maven Plugin Tools
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Plugin Plugin
> Reporter: Konrad Windszus
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently it is not explicitly specified in
> https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.8.4/maven-plugin-api/plugin.html which format
> the {{description}} field on plugin, mojo and parameter level should have.
> It partially contains HTML tags (also from converted inline javadoc taglets)
> which is problematic for
> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-help-plugin/describe-mojo.html (which
> expects plain text).
> On the other hand, the same plugin descriptor is currently leveraged for goal
> `report` which should include all those HTML details from the source comment.
> Therefore both goals need to extract metadata from source files differently
> and `report` can no longer rely on the previously generated plugin descriptor
> file.
> In addition even the plain text descriptor should contain as many details as
> possible, i.e. it should be converted javadoc taglets -> html -> plain text
> to no loose any detail.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
