Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(45)

Issue 6845085: Compute documentation statistics.

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
8 years ago by teknico
Modified:
8 years ago
Reviewers:
mp+135958
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Compute documentation statistics. Count the total number of YUIDoc documentation lines by enhancing the output of the "bin/lint-yuidoc" command. https://code.launchpad.net/~teknico/juju-gui/extract-doc-stats/+merge/135958 (do not edit description out of merge proposal)

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 7

Patch Set 2 : Compute documentation statistics. #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+82 lines, -42 lines) Patch
A [revision details] View 1 1 chunk +2 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M app/views/charm-panel.js View 1 chunk +2 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M bin/lint-yuidoc View 1 3 chunks +78 lines, -41 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 7
teknico
Please take a look.
8 years ago (2012-11-23 18:04:20 UTC) #1
benji
Thanks for the branch. The only comment that I made that requires action before landing ...
8 years ago (2012-11-23 18:42:17 UTC) #2
teknico
benji wrote: > Thanks for the branch. The only comment that I made that requires ...
8 years ago (2012-11-26 09:29:12 UTC) #3
benji
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, <nicola.larosa@canonical.com> wrote: > benji wrote: >> >> ...
8 years ago (2012-11-26 13:40:40 UTC) #4
gary.poster
Hi Nicola. This is a nice improvement. Thank you! I agree that fixing the docstring ...
8 years ago (2012-11-26 14:24:50 UTC) #5
teknico
*** Submitted: Compute documentation statistics. Count the total number of YUIDoc documentation lines by enhancing ...
8 years ago (2012-11-26 15:43:11 UTC) #6
teknico
8 years ago (2012-11-26 17:23:11 UTC) #7
benji wrote:
> Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see your comments
> in Reitveld.  Did you respond there or just reply to the email?

Weird. I replied (and am replying again) on Rietveld, and can see my previous
reply here.

> If we were using Buildout it would be easy.  Barring that, your
> approach sounds good to me.  We don't need any packages, we can
> just have the shim script in bin/ invoke the script in
> lib/scripts and have the test module live in lib/scripts too.

Do you mean calling it as an external command? I'd rather import code in
lib/scripts/ from the shim script in bin/.

> One downside of this approach is that the current working
> directory will have to be the root of the checkout for the shim
> script to be able to find the "real" script.  (Unless we do
> something fancy in the shim script, which does not seem to be
> worth the effort.)

Well, nothing *very* fancy, I guess, just the usual path building based on
os.path.dirname(__file__).

> I appreciate it, but I adhere to the "tie goes to the runner" rule.
> If you really like these names better, then that is fine.  If my
> comment had made you think "Oh, yeah, I don't like them either"
> then that would have been another story.

Ok, since Gary has also said he likes the "file_functions" name and the
"_functions" suffixes, I left them in. I did revert "in_undocumented" to
"is_documented", though.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b