Package com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.annotation

Class MissingDeprecatedCheck

java.lang.Object
com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.AbstractAutomaticBean
com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.api.AbstractViolationReporter
com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.api.AbstractCheck
com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.javadoc.AbstractJavadocCheck
com.puppycrawl.tools.checkstyle.checks.annotation.MissingDeprecatedCheck
All Implemented Interfaces:
Configurable, Contextualizable
public final class MissingDeprecatedCheck extends AbstractJavadocCheck
Verifies that the annotation @Deprecated and the Javadoc tag @deprecated are both present when either of them is present.

Both ways of flagging deprecation serve their own purpose. The @Deprecated annotation is used for compilers and development tools. The @deprecated javadoc tag is used to document why something is deprecated and what, if any, alternatives exist.

In order to properly mark something as deprecated both forms of deprecation should be present.

Package deprecation is an exception to the rule of always using the javadoc tag and annotation to deprecate. It is not clear if the javadoc tool will support it or not as newer versions keep flip-flopping on if it is supported or will cause an error. See JDK-8160601. The deprecated javadoc tag is currently the only way to say why the package is deprecated and what to use instead. Until this is resolved, if you don't want to print violations on package-info, you can use a filter to ignore these files until the javadoc tool faithfully supports it. An example config using SuppressionSingleFilter is: 


 <!-- required till https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8160601 -->
 <module name="SuppressionSingleFilter">
     <property name="checks" value="MissingDeprecatedCheck"/>
     <property name="files" value="package-info\.java"/>
 </module>
Since:
5.0