cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Kurdumov <kant2...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Documentation generation in pure Node.JS
Date Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:29:10 GMT
Does anybody except Michael look on the documentation generation?
I need this as a basis for future work on tools which helps me increase
quality of translation.
For first I want to have tool which ensures that autolinking in translated
docs is working in same places as in original English translation.

2014-12-11 23:17 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <michael@michaelbrooks.ca>:
>
> Andrey, you're approach sounds incredibly thorough! I'll set aside some
> time to test your pull request and see how it runs on my system. Today is
> already full, so I'll try to have some time set aside for tomorrow or the
> weekend.
>
> If anyone else is available to test it, that would be great as well!
>
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/236
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Andrey Kurdumov <kant2002@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks,
> > 1. Already play with marked options and don't find any way to resolve
> that
> > using that path. Now I done following:
> >     a) Generate latest docs using Ruby & JS
> >     b) Made changes to the original MD files, so previously generated
> > version with Ruby will match with generated using JS
> >     c) Regenerate Ruby version against changed MD files and verify that
> > docs still the same as it was originally.
> > I made changes to MD files so all languages produce identical results
> > Original MD + Ruby <==> Modified MD + JS <==>  Modified MD + Ruby
> > Most of the changes is inserting or removing blank lines, and most of
> > changes is duplication of same place in the MD file, which was caused by
> > copying file to new version.
> >
> > NOTE for documentation writers, Section header should be separated by two
> > lines most of the time for documentation to be correctly generated.
> >
> > 2. Then prefer to drop generation for that _index.json.
> >
> > I'm fully ready for this pull request to be merged, I don't see now any
> > piece of docs that different from original.
> >
> > 2014-12-08 23:22 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <michael@michaelbrooks.ca>:
> >
> > > Hi Andrey,
> > >
> > > 1. marked is certainly the most popular and active markdown generate
> for
> > > node. You may want to consider playing around with the options it
> offers.
> > >
> > > 2. _index.json was produced by the original joDoc generator, so the
> > > node-version may not support it. To the best of my knowledge, no one
> uses
> > > the JSON interface, which was intended to act as a simple API to the
> > > documentation.
> > >
> > > Nice work!
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Andrey Kurdumov <
> > kant2002@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Bumping this thread again, since looks like I almost finish port Ruby
> > > > version of documents generation to JS.
> > > > I fix issues which you discover last time, and create validation
> script
> > > > which theoretically could spot differences between old version and
> new
> > > one.
> > > > So far everything looks good except following 2 items:
> > > >
> > > > 1. JS version of Markdown parser currently in use is more strict then
> > > Ruby
> > > > version (Used NPM module *marked*). This results that some small
> subset
> > > of
> > > > files produce not identical output in those places where nested lists
> > are
> > > > used. This could be fixed by adding or removing empty lines. I'm not
> > sure
> > > > should I change original MD files, or search for better Markdown
> > parser.
> > > If
> > > > somebody know better MD parser I would appreciate pointing on it.
> > > > 2. In original docs some unknown _index.json file. Does anybody know
> > who
> > > is
> > > > producing this file and how it is generated, so I could duplicate it
> > > > generation too.
> > > >
> > > > I sure that this is what only thing which prevent me from thinking
> that
> > > > everything is done.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-11-04 23:33 GMT+06:00 Michael Brooks <michael@michaelbrooks.ca
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Audrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for tackling this issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > Truth be told, we want to move away from jsdoc entirely. Years ago,
> > we
> > > > > thought that the auto-linking and other auto-magical aspects of
> jsdoc
> > > > would
> > > > > be nice, but it's caused more problems than good. The ruby
> > environment
> > > is
> > > > > also troublesome, although we've largely solved that with a Vagrant
> > > > image.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, it sounds as though you've managed to re-implement all of
> > the
> > > > > original middleware that we created. If you're confident that the
> > docs
> > > > will
> > > > > generate the same as before, then I think we'd happily welcome a
> > > > pure-node
> > > > > documentation generator. I think we will be moving to a different
> doc
> > > > > generation approach in the future, but your re-implementation will
> > be a
> > > > > great transitional step!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be happy to review your pull request once you've squashed the
> > > various
> > > > > bugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Andrey Kurdumov <
> > > kant2002@googlemail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also find that links in Guides is missing. Not yet sure why
is
> > that
> > > > > > looking into that.
> > > > > > Issue which Shazron discover should be fixed now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2014-11-04 3:00 GMT+06:00 Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just tried it using the steps Shaz listed on the PR and
its
> > working
> > > > for
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > fine.  However, there are some warnings during generation
> (bunch
> > of
> > > > > "Did
> > > > > > > not found link for the keyword"), and the generated pages
> appear
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > some links missing (such as the first page, Guides do not
link
> to
> > > > > > > anything).  Unsure if the warning is the cause of the missing
> > > links.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Keep chugging away!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Michal
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Love that you're working on this!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > I tested it out but I ran into problems. See
my comment on
> > your
> > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > request.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Andrey Kurdumov
<
> > > > > > > kant2002@googlemail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello guys,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I almost finish implementing
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6751
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In short this is implementation of Cordova
Docs website
> > > > generator
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > Node.JS instead of relying on Vagrant and
Ruby.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Summary of work:
> > > > > > > > > > - Implementation duplicates Ruby code as
much as
> possible.
> > > > Tests
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > written for Ruby, was reimplemented in JS.
> > > > > > > > > > - Created new executable genjs in the bin
folder, which
> > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > documentation to the *public/test* folder,
instead of
> > > *public*
> > > > > > > folder,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > differences between implementation could
be found using
> > > > standard
> > > > > > > > diffing
> > > > > > > > > > tools.
> > > > > > > > > > - Implementation verified on Mac and Windows.
> > > > > > > > > > - Small improvements to CLI interface (single
language
> > > > > generation,
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > version generation, added verbose mode for
tracing
> > execution)
> > > > > > > > > > - As I can tell, JS implementation produce
almost same
> HTML
> > > > code
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > Ruby
> > > > > > > > > > version. I done some smoke testing of changes
and seems
> > that
> > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > good, but willing that you guys look at
the docs too.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To make this works with existing documentation
and
> support
> > > > > > Windows, I
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > to fork existing implementation of joDoc-js
(
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/kant2002/jodoc-js)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Issues:
> > > > > > > > > > - Windows suffer from occasional EPERM issues
during
> > > generation
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pull request for that implementation is
here:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/236
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message