Move to ex_doc -style documentation #112
Conversation
|
I did this change without first checking if the Issues or Pull requests mentioned it (glad they didn't, so my time wasn't wasted 😄), but now see it might even fit well with #102, that mentions:
|
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8ed9115
to
0e461a6
Compare
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #112 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 76.30% 76.08% -0.23%
==========================================
Files 12 12
Lines 764 740 -24
==========================================
- Hits 583 563 -20
+ Misses 181 177 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
from
0e461a6
to
285aff7
Compare
|
CI failing for OTP 26. I'll try to replicate locally. |
|
Removed OTP 26 from scope, since there're SSL -related issues to solve. Should be moved to a new PR, I guess... |
|
Is anything lacking for this one to get merged? I can then rebase and update the other ones. |
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5db0d64
to
6b0a4d1
Compare
|
Moved to draft. These don't need to be reviewed before #114, after which I'll rebase. |
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
from
bcee3dc
to
d556be7
Compare
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
from
d556be7
to
2c3cdeb
Compare
|
My only concern is people likely got used to having the docs there in the github repo. But moving to exdoc is def needed and the future, seeing as OTP itself has done so. Perfect world we could have both. Resolve the conflicts and I'll merge. |
|
I don't mind pushing the Edit: I don't believe I've removed it, so am wondering where "in the github repo" you could see this? Rendered on the source code directly? |
It'll be online at hexdocs.pm
(and reference it from README.md)
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
from
09984bb
to
6533627
Compare
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
force-pushed
the
feature/ex_doc
branch
from
6533627
to
019a147
Compare
|
@tsloughter, tests are passing. Lemme know if you want me to change something, or we can also create issues and look at it later, if it's not blocking. My goal would be, after this, to get tests running on 26 and 27, and then request a release. |
|
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira sorry, wasn't clear. I meant just if it could be markdown. Since it can't be generated to markdown we can remove it. After you remove it I'll merge this. |
What I thought 😄 Alas, it can't. But should it be possible? I mean, we write Markdown in the doc.s, then it gets converted to HTML, so surely something can be done (?) |
|
@tsloughter, I think now we're ready 😄 |
|
@tsloughter, shall we tag somebody to do extra validation on this, or is it Ok? |
| %% The result is either a `byte_range_set()' or the atom `parse_error'. | ||
| %% Use {@link elli_util:normalize_range/2} to get a validated, normalized range. | ||
| %% The result is either a `[http_range()]' or the atom `parse_error'. | ||
| %% Use `elli_util:normalize_range/2' to get a validated, normalized range. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should, yeah; it's pretty good at that. But lemme try it out, locally.
src/elli_http.erl
Outdated
| @@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ split_path(Path) -> | |||
| P =/= <<>>]. | |||
|
|
|||
| %% @doc Split the URL arguments into a proplist. | |||
| %% Lifted from `cowboy_http:x_www_form_urlencoded/2'. | |||
| %% Lifted from cowboy_http:x_www_form_urlencoded/2. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there some particular reason to drop the ` and ' here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No special reason. Lemme re-check the links.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Most likely because it's a link to an external project, so it wouldn't know where to point, but I can check...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless you mean you want to keep the notation even if there's no link, which seems to be the case.
ex_doc is already smart enough to turn the call into a link to the Erlang docs
|
Push two minor changes (latest commits) based on review and self-review. I believe it's possible to publish the docs alone (to test them out?) even though I've never done it before. |
Note: Depends on the CI file updates from #114, so shall be rebased and updated (if required) after that one. Closes #121.
What this pull request is
rebar3_ex_docruns smoothly on this, viarebar3 ex_doc, thusWhat this pull request is not
Bonus
Notes
docfolder, since I expect the documentation to be hosted next to hexdocs.pm, but lemme know if this was a good callellito the modules, but Elli to the project consistently (this wasn't 100% done)