Does anybody except Michael look on the documentation generation? I need this as a basis for future work on tools which helps me increase quality of translation. For first I want to have tool which ensures that autolinking in translated docs is working in same places as in original English translation.
2014-12-11 23:17 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca>: > > Andrey, you're approach sounds incredibly thorough! I'll set aside some > time to test your pull request and see how it runs on my system. Today is > already full, so I'll try to have some time set aside for tomorrow or the > weekend. > > If anyone else is available to test it, that would be great as well! > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/236 > > Michael > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Andrey Kurdumov <kant2...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks, > > 1. Already play with marked options and don't find any way to resolve > that > > using that path. Now I done following: > > a) Generate latest docs using Ruby & JS > > b) Made changes to the original MD files, so previously generated > > version with Ruby will match with generated using JS > > c) Regenerate Ruby version against changed MD files and verify that > > docs still the same as it was originally. > > I made changes to MD files so all languages produce identical results > > Original MD + Ruby <==> Modified MD + JS <==> Modified MD + Ruby > > Most of the changes is inserting or removing blank lines, and most of > > changes is duplication of same place in the MD file, which was caused by > > copying file to new version. > > > > NOTE for documentation writers, Section header should be separated by two > > lines most of the time for documentation to be correctly generated. > > > > 2. Then prefer to drop generation for that _index.json. > > > > I'm fully ready for this pull request to be merged, I don't see now any > > piece of docs that different from original. > > > > 2014-12-08 23:22 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca>: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
