+1 to what Rob said.

I guess I don't see what problems is being solved by turning the rule off,
and I also don't see the harm in having more check. It does generate a lot
of warnings, but invoking `npm run lint -- --quiet` gets rid of those.
Also, from my experience, sphinx-based doc builds are notoriously
permissive about bad formatting. Eslint's stricter jsdoc checks would add
an additional safety net.

However, if you're working on this with the docs team, then the result
should be applicable to the entirety of openstack - meaning that once your
work is complete, it may make sense to turn the rule off globally.

Michael

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:14 AM Rob Cresswell (rcresswe) <rcres...@cisco.com>
wrote:

> If possible, I’d really prefer we left linting work to Newton. It’ll be
> good to get it to a more usable state again, but we ought to be focusing on
> thoroughly checking the new Launch Instance for bugs and edge usage cases,
> as well as the outstanding bugs and blueprints targeted at RC1 (
> https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/mitaka-rc1). This is a great
> opportunity to prove that the Angular rewrites are fully capable of
> providing an improved experience, and we should be capitalising on that.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2016, at 02:25, Richard Jones <r1chardj0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I started looking into fixing the wall of "npm run lint" warnings today
> and quickly noticed that about 85% of the "linting" warnings were about
> jsdoc. We have significant issues around jsdoc anyway and we're supposed to
> be using Sphinx anyway[1].
>
> Some Horizon folks will know that I've been investigating generating
> publishable documentation for our Javascript code for some time. Most of
> the tools either don't work (dgeni) or produce pretty unusable output for a
> project our size (jsdoc and grunt-ngdocs). I am about to investigate Sphinx
> in collaboration with the docs team.
>
> Regardless, I believe that the documentation generation should generate
> errors about that documentation, not the code linter. Once we actually get
> a documentation generator going. Until then, we don't even know what syntax
> the documentation should follow.
>
> I've proposed a change which just turns jsdoc "linting" off[2]. At the
> moment, it is less than useful (the noise drowns out any other, legitimate
> linting).
>
>
>      Richard
>
>
> [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/cti/javascript-cti.html
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290235/
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to