Hello is there way to automatically generate documentation for public methods, interfaces, fields etc.? e.g. now I should write somethink like this to generate documentation for enum Bacgkround:
> ///
> enum Background {
>     transparent,  ///
>     light,  ///
>     dark,  ///
>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
> }

I would like to write insted this:
> enum Background {
>     transparent,
>     light,
>     dark,
>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
> }

and avoid all redundant comments.

On 11/6/17 11:01 PM, Andrey wrote:
> Hello is there way to automatically generate documentation for public methods, interfaces, fields etc.? e.g. now I should write somethink like this to generate documentation for enum Bacgkround:
>> ///
>> enum Background {
>>     transparent,  ///
>>     light,  ///
>>     dark,  ///
>>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
>> }
> 
> I would like to write insted this:
>> enum Background {
>>     transparent,
>>     light,
>>     dark,
>>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
>> }
> 
> and avoid all redundant comments.

Sorry, this isn't possible. Ddoc requires opt-in for public documentation. The alternative would be opt-out, which would look even worse I think.

-Steve

On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 14:02:28 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 11/6/17 11:01 PM, Andrey wrote:
>> Hello is there way to automatically generate documentation for public methods, interfaces, fields etc.? e.g. now I should write somethink like this to generate documentation for enum Bacgkround:
>>> ///
>>> enum Background {
>>>     transparent,  ///
>>>     light,  ///
>>>     dark,  ///
>>>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
>>> }
>> 
>> I would like to write insted this:
>>> enum Background {
>>>     transparent,
>>>     light,
>>>     dark,
>>>     action,  /// Background for action panel, e.g. with buttons OK, Cancel etc.
>>> }
>> 
>> and avoid all redundant comments.
>
> Sorry, this isn't possible. Ddoc requires opt-in for public documentation. The alternative would be opt-out, which would look even worse I think.
>
> -Steve

I just added to dub.json this:

> "-ddoxFilterArgs": [
>     "--min-protection=Public"
> ]

i.e. without --only-documented option, in this way ddox will generate documentation for all public methods, even if there is no docstring.

On 11/8/17 10:45 PM, Andrey wrote:

> I just added to dub.json this:
> 
>> "-ddoxFilterArgs": [
>>     "--min-protection=Public"
>> ]
> 
> i.e. without --only-documented option, in this way ddox will generate documentation for all public methods, even if there is no docstring.

Interesting. I misunderstood then how ddox works. I thought the json it gets is the output from the ddoc generator, but now I realize it's the output from the parser itself.

So sure, this makes sense. Sorry for the misinformation!

-Steve

On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 14:21:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 11/8/17 10:45 PM, Andrey wrote:
>
>> I just added to dub.json this:
>> 
>>> "-ddoxFilterArgs": [
>>>     "--min-protection=Public"
>>> ]
>> 
>> i.e. without --only-documented option, in this way ddox will generate documentation for all public methods, even if there is no docstring.
>
> Interesting. I misunderstood then how ddox works. I thought the json it gets is the output from the ddoc generator, but now I realize it's the output from the parser itself.
>
> So sure, this makes sense. Sorry for the misinformation!
>
> -Steve

I don't want to open a new forum thread for this, but if you guys have more experience with ddox can you please explain me how does it work? I expected you can simply run ddox on a .d file and it will output the documentation in some sort of form (json, html or whatever), but from what I saw, you need to pass it the json if you want to use serve-html/generate-html/filter and you have to use dmd to generate the json. Looking on the source code only passing serve-test actually parses the .d file, but the serve-test doesn't seem to be a public parameter.

Thanks in advance,
RazvanN

On 11/10/17 5:12 AM, RazvanN wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 14:21:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 11/8/17 10:45 PM, Andrey wrote:
>>
>>> I just added to dub.json this:
>>>
>>>> "-ddoxFilterArgs": [
>>>>     "--min-protection=Public"
>>>> ]
>>>
>>> i.e. without --only-documented option, in this way ddox will generate documentation for all public methods, even if there is no docstring.
>>
>> Interesting. I misunderstood then how ddox works. I thought the json it gets is the output from the ddoc generator, but now I realize it's the output from the parser itself.
>>
>> So sure, this makes sense. Sorry for the misinformation!
>>
> 
> I don't want to open a new forum thread for this, but if you guys have more experience with ddox can you please explain me how does it work? I expected you can simply run ddox on a .d file and it will output the documentation in some sort of form (json, html or whatever), but from what I saw, you need to pass it the json if you want to use serve-html/generate-html/filter and you have to use dmd to generate the json. Looking on the source code only passing serve-test actually parses the .d file, but the serve-test doesn't seem to be a public parameter.
> 

Just from observation, I see there's a generated json file when I use ddox. Since dmd can parse code and generate a .json file for a consumer to use, I assumed it was actually the result of ddoc, and ddox was just putting its own spin on it. But it seems the result of parsing all the code is generated in the json file.

I don't know much more than that, so I probably shouldn't have even responded in the first place :)

-Steve

On Friday, 10 November 2017 at 10:12:32 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> I don't want to open a new forum thread for this, but if you guys have more experience with ddox can you please explain me how does it work?

There's two modes of operation for ddox: using dmd -D -X to generate a json file, then making the documentation from that, or using libdparse to read the .d file itself and build docs from an AST. I know it used to default to the dmd json, but not sure if the default has changed since then to libdparse.

But the protection thing can work in either way: the dmd json output includes undocumented members too, so ddox can still generate a page for them if required.

On Friday, 10 November 2017 at 10:12:32 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> I don't want to open a new forum thread for this, but if you guys have more experience with ddox can you please explain me how does it work? I expected you can simply run ddox on a .d file and it will output the documentation in some sort of form (json, html or whatever), but from what I saw, you need to pass it the json if you want to use serve-html/generate-html/filter and you have to use dmd to generate the json. Looking on the source code only passing serve-test actually parses the .d file, but the serve-test doesn't seem to be a public parameter.

Not sure whether this is on topic, but does

> dub --build=ddox

do what you want?