Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > I'm not convinced, this is a good idea. > > The docstrings on the models document the data model. The docstrings in > the serializers document the REST > resource model. They are two different things. Although in the pulp

Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

I'm not convinced, this is a good idea. The docstrings on the models document the data model. The docstrings in the serializers document the REST resource model. They are two different things. Although in the pulp case, there isn't much difference (maybe none), it still seems wrong to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

+1 to adopting this idea. @mhrivnak your summary sounds good. What is the next step to doing this? On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > This seems like a good approach. I'd summarize it as: > > Try hard to put the documentation for each field of a

Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

This seems like a good approach. I'd summarize it as: Try hard to put the documentation for each field of a model only on the corresponding serializer, which of course ends up being the API docs. That makes the API docs the primary source of truth. In cases where there is something that is not