[jira] [Comment Edited] (NIFI-12986) Tidy up JavaDoc of ProcessSession

["endzeit (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-12986?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17839770#comment-17839770 ] 

endzeit edited comment on NIFI-12986 at 4/22/24 4:43 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------

As discussed with [~exceptionfactory], I've found both styles of paragraphs throughout the codebase and contradictory recommendations online which is why I opted for the less verbose option, see the conversation in the PR. 

I agree with David, that I'm fine with either style as long as it's consistent. If you prefer the closing tags I'd like to open a PR that aligns all comments in the codebase to that style

I'm fine with removing the deprecation notice but would like to keep the general explanation of why `asyncCommit` was introduced and should be preferred most of the cases. 
The TestRunner by defaults fails when using `commit`, but I wasn't able to directly found the reasoning behind these changes. The comments I added was based on information I found on the PR / ticket that introduced these changes solely. 
What are your thoughts on that?


was (Author: endzeitbegins):
As discussed with [~exceptionfactory], I've found both styles of paragraphs throughout the codebase and contradictory recommendations online which is why I opted for the less verbose option, see the conversation in the PR. 

I agree with David, that I'm fine with either style as long as it's consistent. If you prefer the closing tags I'd like to open a PR that aligns all comments in the codebase to that style

I'm fine with removing the deprecation notice but would like to see the general explanation of why `asyncCommit` was introduced and should be preferred most of the cases. 
The TestRunner by defaults fails when using `commit`, but I wasn't able to directly found the reasoning behind these changes. The comments I added was based on information I found on the PR / ticket that introduced these changes solely. 
What are your thoughts on that?

> Tidy up JavaDoc of ProcessSession
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-12986
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-12986
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: endzeit
>            Assignee: endzeit
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 2.0.0-M3
>
>          Time Spent: 1h 20m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> While working on NIFI-12982 I noticed that the JavaDoc of {{ProcessSession}} has some minor typos and documentation drifts between method overloads.
> The goal of this ticket is to aim make the JavaDoc for the current {{ProcessSession}} specification more consistent. The specified contract must not be altered. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)