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.

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

Doxygen 1.9 can't be used to run docs #48

Open
cdecompilador opened this issue Feb 20, 2022 · 9 comments
Open

Doxygen 1.9 can't be used to run docs #48

cdecompilador opened this issue Feb 20, 2022 · 9 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working docs Issues related to Doxygen and m.css in generated projects

Comments

@cdecompilador
Copy link

Because of m.css not having still support for Doxygen 1.9 the cmake --build --preset=dev -t docs fails with a weird message, maybe adding a detailed error saying to downgrade Doxygen to 1.8 or switching to another frontend that supports doxygen 1.9

@friendlyanon friendlyanon added the bug Something isn't working label Feb 20, 2022
@friendlyanon
Copy link
Owner

Yes, the situation around docs isn't the prettiest right now. Also mentioned in #41 (comment) I would be happy with an alternative solution.

@friendlyanon friendlyanon changed the title Doxygen 1.9 does not work Doxygen 1.9 can't be used to run docs Feb 20, 2022
friendlyanon added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 20, 2022
m.css does not work with Doxygen >= 1.9

Issues: #41, #48
@friendlyanon friendlyanon added the docs Issues related to Doxygen and m.css in generated projects label May 26, 2022
@avitase
Copy link

avitase commented Jul 23, 2022

Might be a dumb question to ask, but why do you use m.css in the first place? If it's causing trouble and is on the edge of being abandonware why not use vanilla Doxygen instead? In the end, m.css is just a skin that (significantly) improves Doxygen's visual appearance but it also brings in an unnecessary (?) sketchy dependency. I understand that the intention of this repository is to be opinionated but reverting to good old vanilla Doxygen would not rip out too much functionality and users are still free to throw in their own custom skins: https://doxygen.nl/manual/customize.html

My suggestion: separate the discussion about possible Doxygen replacements from the question whether m.css is a good skin, e.g., by splitting the label doxygen into two labels: doxygen and m.css.

@friendlyanon
Copy link
Owner

The default Doxygen skin is really not good and as you answered your own question, it significantly improves the quality of the output. Having one less thing to setup in an initializer utility is a good thing.

As mentioned in #58, I would be happy to move to alternatives as well. If you think you can improve things in this area, PRs are also welcome. I have a bit less time nowadays to do a lot of extra research in this area.

@avitase
Copy link

avitase commented Jul 23, 2022

Well, my suggestion is to get rid of m.css but I fully appreciate different opinions about that; but I will not bother to make PRs if you had reasons to choose m.css and would decline the PR anyhow. AFAIK, you are not losing any features (besides visual appearance) by abandoning m.css. However, these doxygen issues are not genuine Doxygen problems but m.css issues and for the sake of transparency, you should rename this label.

@friendlyanon
Copy link
Owner

m.css also provides a quick search that I really really like. It's a small thing, but it's gives that polished feel and makes looking for things much easier. Check the m.css demo: https://doc.magnum.graphics/magnum/

@avitase
Copy link

avitase commented Jul 23, 2022

Fair enough:)

@friendlyanon
Copy link
Owner

In fact, I'm going to mention it separately here that I really don't like how cppreference removed their own search feature and instead co-opted to use DDG. You used to get a small popup that showed you results as you typed. I think it's a real issue that now you get redirected to get search results. My insistence in this regard probably reflects this annoyance of mine.

@avitase
Copy link

avitase commented Jul 23, 2022

Thinking about this issue a bit longer I think that the current solution is actually fine. From a user perspective, it is easier to remove m.css and to fall back to vanilla Doxygen than to include it post hoc.

@asmaloney
Copy link

I'm using doxygen-awesome-css (example) for one of my libs and I quite like it. Not sure if it suits your purpose, but it's worth a look!

Works fine with Doxygen 1.9.6.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working docs Issues related to Doxygen and m.css in generated projects
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants