I don't think these do anything with the documentation generators
we currently use. Especially not in tests. How are tests part of a
"package" when the code is not?
Note how most of these are simply identical to the namespace. They
are most probably auto-generated by some IDEs but don't actually
mean anything.
Change-Id: I771b5f2041a8e3b077865c79cbebddbe028543d1
Initally used a new sniff with autofix (T333745),
but some provide are defined non-static in TestBase class
and need more work to make them static in a compatible way
Bug: T332865
Change-Id: I889d33424f0c01fb26f2d86f8d4fc3de3e568843
These are not only 100% identical to the actual code, but also:
* It's error-prone. Some are already wrong.
* These test…() functions are not meant to be called from
anywhere. What is the target audience for this documentation?
* There is a @dataProvider. What such @param tags actually do is
document the provider, but in an odd place. Just looking at
the provider should give the same information.
* The MediaWiki CodeSniffer allows to skip @param when there is
a @dataProvider, for the reasone listed.
Change-Id: I0f6f42f9a15776df944a0da48a50f9d5a2fb6349
CacheTime::mUsedOptions and ParserOutput::mAccessedOptions
do exactly the same thing and has to be merged into a single property.
This patch adds forward-compatibility and needs to be deployed
at least one train before the patch which actually merges the properties.
Change-Id: Ic9d71a443994e2545ebf2a826b9155c82961cb88
