On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:09:16PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 26 August 2010 22:04, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:34:01PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >> On 26 August 2010 20:35, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:16:41PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:09:56PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >> >> > On 26 August 2010 19:51, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:42:35PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >> >> > >> On 26 August 2010 18:22, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> > I've thought some more on how to organize/synchronize the FEniCS > >> >> > >> > documentation (in fenics-doc) with the documentation we have in > >> >> > >> > the > >> >> > >> > code. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I think it is important that > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > (1) the strings we have in the code are the same as those that > >> >> > >> > appear > >> >> > >> > on in the HTML documentation (which we write in Sphinx). > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > (2) the strings we have in the code are short (so they don't > >> >> > >> > clutter > >> >> > >> > up the code) > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> I disagree. The whole idea of the documentation effort was to > >> >> > >> document > >> >> > >> in one place > >> >> > >> (using carefully handwritten and elaborate explanations including > >> >> > >> examples and links to demos etc.) and code in another. > >> >> > >> The comments in the code should be very short and precise such that > >> >> > >> together with the class/function definition and type info the > >> >> > >> developer can complete the task without looking elsewhere. These > >> >> > >> kind > >> >> > >> of comments, I expect, will look weird when put next to an > >> >> > >> elaborate > >> >> > >> explanation on how the class/function works including all the bells > >> >> > >> and whistles. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > If we look at these two, it seems that (1) implies that we should > >> >> > >> > write the documentation as part of the code and then extract it > >> >> > >> > using > >> >> > >> > some tool. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > But (2) prevents that since we don't want to constrain the > >> >> > >> > documentation for all functions to be very short. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > How about the following solution. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > * Write short docstrings in the code > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > * Auto-generate all the .rst input files for the Programmer's > >> >> > >> > Reference using a simple Python script that looks for '///' > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > * The script looks at the code to generate the signature of the > >> >> > >> > function and the text that comes immediately after. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> This might be possible for a simple > >> >> > >> 'change-order-of-comment-and-function' script where you manipulate > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> output manually afterwards, but if you want to run this more than > >> >> > >> once > >> >> > >> you will have to pick up nested class/struct definitions templates > >> >> > >> and > >> >> > >> all kinds of crap. > >> >> > >> I tried to write a parser like this to check if all classes and > >> >> > >> functions were documented, but gave up and let Doxygen do the dirty > >> >> > >> work. (But do we want to do this just to generate 20 characters of > >> >> > >> docstring automatically?) > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > But it also looks in a hand-written .rst file that contains any > >> >> > >> > additional stuff we want to put below. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > So for the code example in the style manual, the things that get > >> >> > >> > picked up from the code are > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > // Return the cell which is closest to the given point > >> >> > >> > uint closest_cell(const Point & point) const > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > which gets converted to > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > .. cpp:function:: uint closest_cell(const Point & point) const > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Return the cell which is closest to the given point > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > The script also looks in a file for "closest_cell" below which > >> >> > >> > we have > >> >> > >> > written all the *Arguments* stuff that will be thrown in below. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Will that work? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Yes, but the work flow is getting complex, and you'll need to know > >> >> > >> what you get from the source code so you don't repeat yourself. > >> >> > >> It is much easier to have the documentation in one place. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Another solution would be to just write everything as part of the > >> >> > >> > code, and just add some settings to our editors that will fold > >> >> > >> > the > >> >> > >> > extra stuff away so we don't need to see it. Maybe that is the > >> >> > >> > most > >> >> > >> > robust solution? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> The general consensus the last time this issue came up was not to > >> >> > >> clutter the code with documentation markup. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Kristian > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I agree it's good to have the documentation in one place, but it > >> >> > > would > >> >> > > be good if we found a way to keep it in sync. Helper scripts can do > >> >> > > some of that work, but we probably won't be able to pick up things > >> >> > > like having > >> >> > > > >> >> > > "Compute the number of neighbors" > >> >> > > > >> >> > > in one place and > >> >> > > > >> >> > > "Return the number of neighbors" > >> >> > > > >> >> > > in other places. Things like this will creep in over time. It might > >> >> > > not be a big issue but I find it a bit annoying. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see. A simpler approach, rather than generating docstrings would be > >> >> > to have a script that > >> >> > simply looks for '///' comments in dolfin/mesh/Mesh.h and check if the > >> >> > EXACT same strings are present in > >> >> > programmers-reference/cpp/mesh/Mesh.rst, if not crash test and let > >> >> > user figure out manually why it failed and which comment/docstring > >> >> > should be changed. > >> >> > This won't be completely bulletproof, but much much simpler than > >> >> > parsing a C++ library. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, that might be a good solution. > >> >> > >> >> > I currently check if the docstrings of the documentation for the > >> >> > Python interface is equal to the docstrings of the DOLFIN module after > >> >> > import so that sort of works in the same way, only in this case I know > >> >> > that the docstring I check belongs to function 'bar' of class 'foo'. > >> >> > > >> >> > Then we use the stub-generator that you have know to give us the first > >> >> > set of *.rst files and then add the '///' comments check to the > >> >> > verify_cpp_documentation.py script. > >> >> > >> >> It's almost there now, I just need to do some polishing. > >> >> > >> >> Sphinx is currently crashing when it generates the documentation from > >> >> the .rst files I generate. > >> >> > >> >> Exception occurred: > >> >> File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/docutils/nodes.py", line 1898, in > >> >> dupname > >> >> node['names'].remove(name) > >> >> ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list > >> >> > >> >> Any ideas what this might be? > >> > > >> > Looks like this happens when there are multiple functions with the > >> > same signature. > >> > >> Very likely, and that's probably because you need to extract 'const' > >> information too, and that's just the tip of the iceberg if we proceed > >> down this road.... > > > > Try now. > > > > You need to set DOLFIN_DIR to the DOLFIN source tree. > > > > Then run > > > > python utils/generate_cpp_doc.py > > make html > > > > The generated stuff is in {source/build}/programmers-reference/test/cpp > > OK, I'm just finishing a DOLFIN build to test the docstrings in the > Python interface. Will test soon. > > > I'll be moving it to {source/build}/programmers-reference/cpp and make > > sure not to overwrite the Mesh and Point class documentation that you > > have written. > > There is no C++ documentation for Point, only for the Python interface > and that was just to see how some of the autodoc functions worked. > Anyway, we can always dig it up by reverting the repo to hack away.
I noticed that. I just remember seeing something about the Point class. Anyway, it seems to work now. What is missing is to generate the index.rst files for each module. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
