Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

allow to specify ddox tool #702

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 11, 2015
Merged

allow to specify ddox tool #702

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 11, 2015

Conversation

MartinNowak
Copy link
Member

  • can be used to customize the ddox tool (and it's output)
  • assumes similar commands/behavior

@MartinNowak MartinNowak force-pushed the ddox_tool branch 4 times, most recently from 0e6d279 to d2549f8 Compare September 30, 2015 11:09
@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member Author

I'm open to other ways for configuring this as well.

@MartinNowak MartinNowak force-pushed the ddox_tool branch 2 times, most recently from df60a79 to 4576dd2 Compare October 18, 2015 07:50
@MartinNowak
allow to specify ddox tool
16d57be 
- can be used to customize the ddox tool (and it's output)
- assumes similar commands/behavior
@MartinNowak
fix gdc/ldc flags for ddox/docs
3760fd1 
- it seems that gdc cannot currently generate a
  single json file with all output though
- remove dummy doc files after as postBuildStep
@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member Author

Ping

@s-ludwig
Copy link
Member

I was wondering if it wouldn't make sense to use this occasion and switch from special handling of the two documentation build types to a separate "dub doc(s)" command. That could avoid additional special cases, such as those internal BuildOption members (or the hard-coded dflags of the previous implementation for that matter).

Anyway, the functionality makes sense, as well as a potential "-ddoxGenerateArgs" field.

@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member Author

I was wondering if it wouldn't make sense to use this occasion and switch from special handling of the two documentation build types to a separate "dub doc(s)" command.

It does make sense, but can we separate that and use this PR as intermediate step?
Writing a doc command that handles ddoc, ddox, and other builds is quite some work.

@MartinNowak
Copy link
Member Author

It does make sense, but can we separate that and use this PR as intermediate step?

What do you think? Go with the immediate improvement now and do more later?

@s-ludwig
Copy link
Member

Should be alright. When I get some time I'll look into adding a really simple dedicated command (that just mirrors the current functionality) for the next release. We can extend it later then.

s-ludwig added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2015
@s-ludwig
Merge pull request #702 from MartinNowak/ddox_tool
3ab683b 
allow to specify ddox tool
@s-ludwig s-ludwig merged commit 3ab683b into dlang:master Nov 11, 2015
@MartinNowak MartinNowak deleted the ddox_tool branch November 21, 2015 02:02
@MartinNowak MartinNowak mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2016
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@MartinNowak @s-ludwig