8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpRequest variable declaration #28084

ehs208 · 2025-10-31T10:22:06Z

Fixes JDK-8371009.

The synchronous HttpClient example references request without defining it.
This patch adds a minimal HttpRequest initialization immediately before the
synchronous example (mirroring the asynchronous snippet) so the example
compiles and runs as-is.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpRequest variable declaration (Bug - P5)

Reviewers

Daniel Fuchs (@dfuch - Reviewer)
Michael McMahon (@Michael-Mc-Mahon - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28084/head:pull/28084
$ git checkout pull/28084

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/28084
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28084/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 28084

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 28084

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28084.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

…st variable declaration

bridgekeeper · 2025-10-31T10:24:04Z

👋 Welcome back ehs208! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2025-10-31T10:26:00Z

@ehs208 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpRequest variable declaration

Reviewed-by: dfuchs, michaelm

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 75 new commits pushed to the master branch:

3e3822a: 8365047: Remove exception handler stub code in C2
6a51b51: 8371197: G1: Use void for return type of G1RegionsOnNodes::add
0737a56: 8370708: RISC-V: Add VerifyStackAtCalls
... and 72 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8e3620a344f83a21191bb70cf2af24e9ae1952ce...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@dfuch, @Michael-Mc-Mahon) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

openjdk · 2025-10-31T10:27:25Z

@ehs208 The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

net

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2025-10-31T10:31:53Z

Webrevs

dfuch · 2025-10-31T10:55:14Z

src/java.net.http/share/classes/java/net/http/HttpClient.java

+ *   HttpRequest request = HttpRequest.newBuilder()
+ *       .uri(URI.create("https://foo.com/"))
+ *       .build();
+ *


Thanks for working on this patch!

I would put the creation of the request after the creation of the client. Logically you would create the client first.

Thank you for the review!
I’ve updated the example to create the client before the request, as suggested.

…xample

dfuch · 2025-10-31T15:23:26Z

src/java.net.http/share/classes/java/net/http/HttpClient.java

 * <p><b>Asynchronous Example</b>
 * {@snippet :
 *    HttpRequest request = HttpRequest.newBuilder()
 *        .uri(URI.create("https://foo.com/"))
 *        .timeout(Duration.ofMinutes(2))
 *        .header("Content-Type", "application/json")
 *        .POST(BodyPublishers.ofFile(Paths.get("file.json")))
 *        .build();
 *   client.sendAsync(request, BodyHandlers.ofString())
 *        .thenApply(HttpResponse::body)
 *        .thenAccept(System.out::println);  }
 *


The POST snippet doesn't have the creation of the client, but I believe it's OK because the creation of the client is shown in the snippet just above. In addition, we don't want to seem to promote creating a new client for each new request.

dfuch · 2025-10-31T15:26:19Z

@Michael-Mc-Mahon I believe this change doesn't require a CSR since it's just fixing an example.

@ehs208 did you generate make docs-jdk-api and verify that the generated API documentation correctly displays the new changes?

ehs208 · 2025-11-01T15:40:21Z

@Michael-Mc-Mahon I believe this change doesn't require a CSR since it's just fixing an example.

@ehs208 did you generate make docs-jdk-api and verify that the generated API documentation correctly displays the new changes?

I built the Javadoc locally using make docs-jdk-api and confirmed that the
HttpClient example now renders correctly.

The HttpRequest declaration appears properly before the send call,
matching the asynchronous example style in the generated docs.

(Attached is a screenshot from the generated docs:)

ehs208 · 2025-11-01T15:50:33Z

@Michael-Mc-Mahon I believe this change doesn't require a CSR since it's just fixing an example.
@ehs208 did you generate make docs-jdk-api and verify that the generated API documentation correctly displays the new changes?

I built the Javadoc locally using make docs-jdk-api and confirmed that the HttpClient example now renders correctly.

The HttpRequest declaration appears properly before the send call, matching the asynchronous example style in the generated docs.
(Attached is a screenshot from the generated docs:)

Upon checking again, I noticed that the asynchronous example is indented slightly more than the synchronous one.
It appears that this difference already existed prior to my patch.
Just wanted to confirm whether this is intentional or if we should align the indentation for consistency.

dfuch · 2025-11-03T16:08:11Z

Upon checking again, I noticed that the asynchronous example is indented slightly more than the synchronous one.
It appears that this difference already existed prior to my patch.
Just wanted to confirm whether this is intentional or if we should align the indentation for consistency.

It looks like it's only the first line in the asynchronous example that is misaligned. It would be good to fix it along in this PR. Thanks for catching this.

ehs208 · 2025-11-04T11:18:46Z

Upon checking again, I noticed that the asynchronous example is indented slightly more than the synchronous one.
It appears that this difference already existed prior to my patch.
Just wanted to confirm whether this is intentional or if we should align the indentation for consistency.

It looks like it's only the first line in the asynchronous example that is misaligned. It would be good to fix it along in this PR. Thanks for catching this.

Thanks! The indentation fix has been included in the latest commit.

Michael-Mc-Mahon · 2025-11-05T08:53:25Z

@Michael-Mc-Mahon I believe this change doesn't require a CSR since it's just fixing an example.

@ehs208 did you generate make docs-jdk-api and verify that the generated API documentation correctly displays the new changes?

I agree this is not a spec or behavior change, so should not require a CSR

ehs208 · 2025-11-05T12:18:23Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2025-11-05T12:21:02Z

@ehs208
Your change (at version 34f8d04) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

dfuch · 2025-11-05T14:55:28Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2025-11-05T14:57:09Z

Going to push as commit 973dc3f.
Since your change was applied there have been 78 commits pushed to the master branch:

2dd15cf: 8346719: Add relaunchers to the static JDK image for missing executables
c9a9816: 8371205: AArch64: Remove unused cmpxchg* methods
f6f87bb: 8371133: Clarify the purpose of "src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/resources/ct.properties"
... and 75 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8e3620a344f83a21191bb70cf2af24e9ae1952ce...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-11-05T14:57:28Z

@dfuch @ehs208 Pushed as commit 973dc3f.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

JDK-8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpReque…

34421a7

…st variable declaration

openjdk bot added the net net-dev@openjdk.org label Oct 31, 2025

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Oct 31, 2025

dfuch reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

Apply review suggestion: create client before request in HttpClient e…

0c799d0

…xample

dfuch reviewed Oct 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

JDK-8371009: fix indent

34f8d04

dfuch approved these changes Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 4, 2025

Michael-Mc-Mahon approved these changes Nov 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Nov 5, 2025

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 5, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Nov 5, 2025

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Nov 5, 2025

8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpRequest variable declaration #28084

8371009: HttpClient javadoc synchronous example missing HttpRequest variable declaration #28084

Uh oh!

Conversation

ehs208 commented Oct 31, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Oct 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

dfuch Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ehs208 Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfuch Oct 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfuch commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

ehs208 commented Nov 1, 2025

Uh oh!

ehs208 commented Nov 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dfuch commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

ehs208 commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Michael-Mc-Mahon commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

ehs208 commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

dfuch commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 5, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

ehs208 commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Oct 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ehs208 commented Nov 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading