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
Documentation comment fixes #642
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
KalmanTracker: Convert comment to doc comment
A commented-out if() in CMake looks a lot like a preprocessor directive
ferdnyc
added
docs
Bad or missing help texts / documentation
code
Source code cleanup, streamlining, or style tweaks
labels
Mar 7, 2021
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #642 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 51.74% 51.75% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 151 151
Lines 12254 12255 +1
===========================================
+ Hits 6341 6343 +2
+ Misses 5913 5912 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov's bash script displays an error if the checkout action uses its default depth of 1 for the checkout, so we need to explicitly set it to 0 (or some number > 1).
Merge conflicts have been detected on this PR, please resolve. |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes a few widespread issues with the documentation comments in our header files, that affect the Doxygen-generated API docs. The issues fixed are:
Using both documentation comment blocks and member comments together
Any given item (function, variable, etc.) can only have one documentation comment associated with it. This (though previously very common in our code) does not work:
It will result in the documentation for
SetJson
being "Get and Set JSON methods", as the preceding-comment-block documentation will always take priority.(Technically member documentation — the trailing
///< ...
type — isn't supposed to be used for functions at all, only for variables and members of structs and enums. I think it only works here because class methods are technically members of astruct
. But it'll still break if there's a preceding doc comment.)Placing documentation comments over groups of functions
Documentation comments can only be used to document a single feature (class, function, variable, etc.). Placing a documentation comment over multiple functions doesn't make sense:
This will result in
boxBlurH
having the comment text as its documentation, andboxBlurT
being undocumented.Constructor terminology
Finally, a terminology note. A default constructor is one that can be called with no arguments. Full stop. That is the definition. A few of our headers contained documentation comments like this, which are just wrong and confusing:
So, I tried to correct as many of those as I could, to label the correct constructor as the default.
That abuse of terminology so threw poor @BrennoCaldato that the OpenCV effect headers ended up with comments like these:
Which... I mean, the second comment is correct so it's hard to fault it. Still, I just removed those comments entirely because they didn't provide any API details that required documentation.
Hopefully I fixed all of these, I tried to find them all but I can't promise I didn't miss any.
Beyond those issues I also fixed some nested
#ifdef
nonsense I created in deprecatingTooManySeeks
, and polished up some other minor issues.