Hi Andrey, 1. marked is certainly the most popular and active markdown generate for node. You may want to consider playing around with the options it offers.
2. _index.json was produced by the original joDoc generator, so the node-version may not support it. To the best of my knowledge, no one uses the JSON interface, which was intended to act as a simple API to the documentation. Nice work! Michael On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Andrey Kurdumov <kant2...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Bumping this thread again, since looks like I almost finish port Ruby > version of documents generation to JS. > I fix issues which you discover last time, and create validation script > which theoretically could spot differences between old version and new one. > So far everything looks good except following 2 items: > > 1. JS version of Markdown parser currently in use is more strict then Ruby > version (Used NPM module *marked*). This results that some small subset of > files produce not identical output in those places where nested lists are > used. This could be fixed by adding or removing empty lines. I'm not sure > should I change original MD files, or search for better Markdown parser. If > somebody know better MD parser I would appreciate pointing on it. > 2. In original docs some unknown _index.json file. Does anybody know who is > producing this file and how it is generated, so I could duplicate it > generation too. > > I sure that this is what only thing which prevent me from thinking that > everything is done. > > Best regards, > Andrey > > > 2014-11-04 23:33 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca>: > > > Hi Audrey, > > > > Thanks for tackling this issue! > > > > Truth be told, we want to move away from jsdoc entirely. Years ago, we > > thought that the auto-linking and other auto-magical aspects of jsdoc > would > > be nice, but it's caused more problems than good. The ruby environment is > > also troublesome, although we've largely solved that with a Vagrant > image. > > > > However, it sounds as though you've managed to re-implement all of the > > original middleware that we created. If you're confident that the docs > will > > generate the same as before, then I think we'd happily welcome a > pure-node > > documentation generator. I think we will be moving to a different doc > > generation approach in the future, but your re-implementation will be a > > great transitional step! > > > > I'd be happy to review your pull request once you've squashed the various > > bugs. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Andrey Kurdumov <kant2...@googlemail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > I also find that links in Guides is missing. Not yet sure why is that > > > looking into that. > > > Issue which Shazron discover should be fixed now. > > > > > > 2014-11-04 3:00 GMT+06:00 Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > > Just tried it using the steps Shaz listed on the PR and its working > for > > > me > > > > fine. However, there are some warnings during generation (bunch of > > "Did > > > > not found link for the keyword"), and the generated pages appear to > > have > > > > some links missing (such as the first page, Guides do not link to > > > > anything). Unsure if the warning is the cause of the missing links. > > > > > > > > Keep chugging away! > > > > > > > > -Michal > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Love that you're working on this! > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Andrey, > > > > > > I tested it out but I ran into problems. See my comment on your > > pull > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Andrey Kurdumov < > > > > kant2...@googlemail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I almost finish implementing > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6751 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In short this is implementation of Cordova Docs website > generator > > > > using > > > > > > > Node.JS instead of relying on Vagrant and Ruby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary of work: > > > > > > > - Implementation duplicates Ruby code as much as possible. > Tests > > > > which > > > > > > was > > > > > > > written for Ruby, was reimplemented in JS. > > > > > > > - Created new executable genjs in the bin folder, which > generate > > > > > > > documentation to the *public/test* folder, instead of *public* > > > > folder, > > > > > so > > > > > > > differences between implementation could be found using > standard > > > > > diffing > > > > > > > tools. > > > > > > > - Implementation verified on Mac and Windows. > > > > > > > - Small improvements to CLI interface (single language > > generation, > > > > > single > > > > > > > version generation, added verbose mode for tracing execution) > > > > > > > - As I can tell, JS implementation produce almost same HTML > code > > as > > > > > Ruby > > > > > > > version. I done some smoke testing of changes and seems that > > > > everything > > > > > > is > > > > > > > good, but willing that you guys look at the docs too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make this works with existing documentation and support > > > Windows, I > > > > > > have > > > > > > > to fork existing implementation of joDoc-js ( > > > > > > > https://github.com/kant2002/jodoc-js) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues: > > > > > > > - Windows suffer from occasional EPERM issues during generation > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pull request for that implementation is here: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/236 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Andrey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
