On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:56:13PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > On 6 September 2010 17:24, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday September 6 2010 08:13:44 Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 08:08:10AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote: > >> > On Monday September 6 2010 05:47:27 Anders Logg wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:19:03PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > >> > > > > Do we have any functionality in place for handling documentation > >> > > > > that should be automatically generated from the C++ interface and > >> > > > > documentation that needs to be added later? > >> > > > > >> > > > No, not really. > >> > > > >> > > ok. > >> > > > >> > > > > I assume that the documentation we write in the C++ header files > >> > > > > (like Mesh.h) will be the same that appears in Python using > >> > > > > help(Mesh)? > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes and no, the problem is that for instance overloaded methods will > >> > > > only show the last docstring. > >> > > > So, the Mesh.__init__.__doc__ will just contain the Mesh(std::str > >> > > > file_name) docstring. > >> > > > >> > > It would not be difficult to make the documentation extraction script > >> > > we have (in fenics-doc) generate the docstrings module and just > >> > > concatenate all constructor documentation. We are already doing the > >> > > parsing so spitting out class Foo: """ etc would be easy. Perhaps that > >> > > is an option. > >> > > >> > There might be other overloaded methods too. We might try to setle on a > >> > format for these methods, or make this part of the 1% we need to handle > >> > our self. > >> > >> ok. Should also be fairly easy to handle. > > > > Ok. > > > >> > > > > But in some special cases, we may want to go in and handle > >> > > > > documentation for special cases where the Python documentation > >> > > > > needs to be different from the C++ documentation. So there should > >> > > > > be two different sources for the documentation: one that is > >> > > > > generated automatically from the C++ header files, and one that > >> > > > > overwrites or adds documentation for special cases. Is that the > >> > > > > plan? > >> > > > > >> > > > The plan is currently to write the docstrings by hand for the entire > >> > > > dolfin module. One of the reasons is that we rename/ignores > >> > > > functions/classes in the *.i files, and if we we try to automate the > >> > > > docstring generation I think we should make it fully automatic not > >> > > > just part of it. > >> > > > >> > > If we can make it 99% automatic and have an extra file with special > >> > > cases I think that would be ok. > >> > > >> > Agree. > > Yes, but we'll need some automated testing to make sure that the 1% > does not go out of sync with the code. > Most likely the 1% can't be handled because it is relatively important > (definitions in *.i files etc.).
I imagine that "1%" will be the same as the "1%" that we have special treatment for in the SWIG files anyway, so it makes sense those need special treatment. So the idea would be: 1. Document the C++ code in the C++ header files 2. Document the extra Python code in the Python files (?) 3. Document the extra SWIG stuff in a special file > >> > > > Also, we will need to change the syntax in all *example* code of the > >> > > > docstrings. Maybe it can be done, but I'll need to give it some more > >> > > > careful thought. We've already changed the approach a few times now, > >> > > > so I really like the next try to close to our final implementation. > >> > > > >> > > I agree. :-) > >> > > > >> > > > > Another thing to discuss is the possibility of using Doxygen to > >> > > > > extract the documentation. We currently have our own script since > >> > > > > (I assume) Doxygen does not have a C++ --> reST converter. Is that > >> > > > > correct? > >> > > > > >> > > > I don't think Doxygen has any such converter, but there exist a > >> > > > project http://github.com/michaeljones/breathe > >> > > > which makes it possible to use xml output from Doxygen in much the > >> > > > same way as we use autodoc for the Python module. I had a quick go at > >> > > > it but didn't like the result. No links on the index pages to > >> > > > function etc. So what we do now is better, but perhaps it would be a > >> > > > good idea to use Doxygen to extract the docstrings for all classes > >> > > > and functions, I tried parsing the xml output in the > >> > > > test/verify_cpp_ > >> > > > ocumentation.py script and it should be relatively > >> > > > simple to get the docstrings since these are stored as attributes of > >> > > > classes/functions. > >> > > > >> > > Perhaps an idea would be to use Doxygen for parsing and then have our > >> > > own script that works with the XML output from Doxygen? > >> > > >> > I did not know we allready used Doxygen to extract information about > >> > class structure from the headers. > >> > >> I thought it was you who implemented the Doxygen documentation extraction? > > > > Duh... I mean that I did not know we used it in fenics_doc, in > > verify_cpp_documentation.py. > > We don't. I wrote this script to be able to test the documentation in > *.rst files against dolfin. > Basically, I parse all files and keep track of the classes/functions > which are defined in dolfin and try to match those up against the > definitions in the documentation (and vise versa) to catch > missing/obsolete documentation. > > >> > What are the differences between using the XML from Doxygen to also > >> > extract the documentation, and the approach we use today? > >> > >> Pros (of using Doxygen): > >> > >> - Doxygen is developed by people that presumably are very good at > >> extracting docs from C++ code > >> > >> - Doxygen might handle some corner cases we can't handle? > > Definitely, and we don't have to maintain it. We would need to maintain the script that extracts data from the Doxygen-generated XML files. > >> Cons (of using Doxygen): > >> > >> - Another dependency > > > > Which we already have. > > > >> - We still need to write a script to parse the XML > > > > We should be able to ust the xml parser in docstringgenerator.py. > > > >> - The parsing of /// stuff from C++ code is very simple > > > > Yes, and this might be just fine. But if it grows we might consider using > > Doxygen. > > But some cases are not handled correctly already (nested classes etc.) > so I vote for Doxygen. Not that I'm insisting on not using Doxygen, but isn't it quite rare that we use nested classes? I think we decided at some point that we wanted to avoid it for some other reason. I don't remember which but it might have been a SWIG problem. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
