Option to specify which jsdoc binary should be used

[ghost]

jsdoc has not had a release since 2017, and does not support BigInts

jsdoc/jsdoc#1918

[ghost]

nevermind, looks like its an administrative thing, the code is being updated.

[75lb]

Hi, yes I'm aware jsdoc has not been updated in many years and it's a big part of the reason many issues on this project lie unresolved too.. There was one trivial jsdoc update recently (which i have now included), I will keep my eye out for more.

[ghost]

cool. can you add BigInt support? I created a PR, but not sure if anyone is home to merge it.

jsdoc/jsdoc#2024

[75lb]

I have had this issue before (waiting on jsdoc to merge fixes).. in the past, I maintained a separate fork of jsdoc which contained the fixes I needed to make jsdoc2md work.. I don't do that anymore, i used jsdoc directly..

Rather than hack jsdoc myself (again), I'd rather add support to jsdoc2md giving the user the option to specify which jsdoc binary should be used.. For example, a command like jsdoc2md --jsdoc-bin my-local-jsdoc-fork --files *.js would generate docs using the jsdoc fork you have modified locally.. this gives the user full control..

Needs a bit of investigation and an update to jsdoc-api.. Will get back to you..

[UmamiAppearance]

This is really odd. I always used JSDoc online documentation to reassure about the correct syntax, without ever considering to actually use the tool to generate documentation. Now I was curious if it can actually save some time when creating documentation. As I just wanted to create a README.md file I used jsdoc2md, or I must say try to use it as I straight ran into this issue.
Searching for a fitting binary or even creating a custom version kind of counteracts the time saving for me.

I can understand, that maintaining a separate fork is not very good option, but maybe it is an idea to apply patches for some problems bigger problems by using a tool like patch-package.

Best regards.

[75lb]

Fixed and released in v9.2.0