On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:46 -0400, you wrote:
Maybe more generally, we should to make a Weird closer to a Notice. For
example, if a file analyzer generates a weird, there are no fields in the
weird.log to map it back to the offending file.
Yeah, that would make a lot sense.
I realize
I was thinking of just a simple Weird::Type enum with comments, much like
how the Notice documentation is generated. I do also like the thought of
the structured namespace.
Maybe more generally, we should to make a Weird closer to a Notice. For
example, if a file analyzer generates a weird, there
It seems like one area where our documentation is sorely lacking is the
weirds. Apart from comments in the code, I believe the only documentation
is the name of the weird itself.
Is there a mechanism in Broxygen to document weirds? If not, has anyone
thought about what such a mechanism might look
On Jun 27, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Vlad Grigorescu v...@grigorescu.org wrote:
Is there a mechanism in Broxygen to document weirds? If not, has anyone
thought about what such a mechanism might look like?
There’s not currently a mechanism. Things that Broxygen can easily aid in
documenting are
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 21:41 +, you wrote:
A suggestion would be to change weirds to use an enum instead of a
string value.
Yeah, either that, or introducing a structured ID namespace (e.g.,
http.client.unexpected_data), potentially with some static analysis
to find IDs that aren't
