You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The output for JSDoc currently has some wonkiness related to module:jsdoc/runtime. The comment that includes the @module tag is also tagged @private, but some static methods are not tagged @private. As a result, those static methods show up on the index page, which pulls from all known doclets. We also generate a pretty-printed source file.
If a module is private, we should hide all of its descendants from the docs. Also, we should not generate a pretty-printed source file for the module.
We should check the behavior of namespaces and classes to make sure they don't have a similar issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
However, it may be tricky to solve this without a performance hit. I think we'd have to keep (and iterate over) a bunch of private doclets that we currently throw away.
The output for JSDoc currently has some wonkiness related to
module:jsdoc/runtime
. The comment that includes the@module
tag is also tagged@private
, but some static methods are not tagged@private
. As a result, those static methods show up on the index page, which pulls from all known doclets. We also generate a pretty-printed source file.If a module is private, we should hide all of its descendants from the docs. Also, we should not generate a pretty-printed source file for the module.
We should check the behavior of namespaces and classes to make sure they don't have a similar issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: