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

[Docs] Generated API docs are missing keywords, descriptions, etc. #874

Closed
shimks opened this issue Jan 17, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

[Docs] Generated API docs are missing keywords, descriptions, etc. #874

shimks opened this issue Jan 17, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@shimks
Copy link
Contributor

shimks commented Jan 17, 2018

Go to apidocs.loopback.io and click on the latest versions of docs for @loopback/rest. From v15 to most recent, the page for the documentation is blank.

Additionally, run npm pack @loopback/rest, unpack the tar, and observe that index.html is essentially blank.

@kjdelisle
Copy link
Contributor

@shimks I don't know the exact cause, but I can say that it's definitely something to do with how strong-docs and TSDoc interact.

I've played around with the latest version of TSDoc and hacked in a script to generate documentation for parts of the loopback project with better results than we currently see.

  • Missing interfaces were filled out
  • Some doc bodies that were being omitted were now showing up
    and so on...

@strongloop/loopback-devs I'm proposing that we drop strong-docs entirely from loopback next and use TSDoc in its current form first, then leverage its customizability to reskin the docs to fit our upcoming theme.

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Jan 29, 2018

I'm proposing that we drop strong-docs entirely from loopback next and use TSDoc in its current form first, then leverage its customizability to reskin the docs to fit our upcoming theme.

In principle, I am happy to drop a tool we have to maintain ourselves and use an off-the-shelf variant maintained by a wider community.

Before we commit to this particular change, I'd like to better understand which features of strong-docs we will lose. For example, strong-docs may support additional annotations like @private, @header and @promise that TSDocs most likely don't support. We should review our loopback-next code for usages of such annotations and make sure we replace them with TSDoc alternatives as part of the migration.

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Feb 1, 2018

@raymondfeng could you please check if your recent work in strong-docs has fixed this problem?

@kjdelisle
Copy link
Contributor

I can confirm that as of this comment, the issues have still not been addressed!

  • Descriptions are missing from...just about everything!

  • What few there are have formatting problems:

    **from packages/rest/api-docs/index.html#InvokeMethod**
    Invokes a method defined in the Application Controller
    
    Returns:
    OperationRetval Result from method invocation
    

My vote is that we switch to TypeDoc and do whatever is required to customize the formatting of those templates (CSS/images/etc), rather than attempt to fix the strong-docs package to compensate for these issues. I don't expect that we'll find a quick fix for much of these issues, and based on my own experience using TypeDoc directly, most of these problems will disappear instantly.

@kjdelisle
Copy link
Contributor

I'd also add that we should begin preparing for the split between the old documentation site and the "new" one (which will be reskinned with the new design/logo/etc)

@kjdelisle kjdelisle changed the title [Docs] Rest docs does not properly generate documentation [Docs] Generated API docs are missing keywords, descriptions, etc. Feb 8, 2018
@raymondfeng
Copy link
Contributor

The issue should have been fixed by strongloop/strong-docs#106. Please verify.

@raymondfeng
Copy link
Contributor

Feel free to reopen it if otherwise. See https://apidocs.strongloop.com/@loopback%2fcontext/v/0.1.0/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants