Update doxygen config file: add protocol and update tag

[oxarbitrage]

As now we have protocol outside chain library we need to add it to DoxyFile in order to generate docs for it.

Also, as current develop already haves more code than 3.2.0 i updated the tag to 3.3.0 as IMO current and future develop will actually became 3.3.0.

#741 can be closed by this.

[abitmore]

We don't have a libraries/chain/db directory.

[abitmore]

I guess we want to add libraries/db, libraries/net, libraries/plugins and etc as well.

And FC.

[oxarbitrage]

I think is a good idea even if we dont have doxygen friendly documentation everywhere, we might have in the future.

For a demo on how it will look with everything please check: https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/

If we do this, we will be in position to close #741

[abitmore]

Looking at https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html, it seems it's a bit too much. Perhaps exclude docs of external projects e.g. websocketpp?

[oxarbitrage]

i excluded external projects, here is how it is looking now: https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html

We might want to merge squashed if we get into something here.

[abitmore]

Looks better now. On https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html, why the boost category is empty?

[abitmore]

I guess it's better to put this in fc's Doxyfile

[oxarbitrage]

It will not work like that if we want have the fc included in bitshares-core output.
doxygen will not read the DoxyFile at sub folders.

We have 3 options:

• remove the DoxyFile from FC fully.
• add the excludes to Doxyfile in FC in case someone is building the documentation only for FC. We still will want to keep the excludes here as we want FC to be part of bitshares-core output.
• dont modify Doxyfile in FC and produce the external modules output if documentation is being generated for FC only.

[abitmore]

Oh. I think the 2nd and 3rd are both fine.

[abitmore]

On https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html, why the boost category is empty?

[oxarbitrage]

I removed the boost from the namespaces at 822bc45, i think it can be a good alternative. Including all boost libraries into our project is massive.

https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html

[abitmore]

Looks like it would be better if we move some classes into namespaces. @pmconrad @nathanhourt @jmjatlanta what do you think?

[oxarbitrage]

There are several warnings in the doxygen generation about undefined references in the codebase, etc. Probably all easy to solve.
We may want to go over these in a separated issue. I will post a doxygen output as soon as we define what are the pieces we will have included(aka after this pull request is merged).

[nathanielhourt]

Looks like it would be better if we move some classes into namespaces. @pmconrad @nathanhourt @jmjatlanta what do you think?

Sorry, I don't follow you... What classes need to be moved into namespaces? AFAIK pretty much all of our classes are in a graphene::xyz namespace, except maybe some unit testing code...

[abitmore]

Looks like it would be better if we move some classes into namespaces. @pmconrad @nathanhourt @jmjatlanta what do you think?

Sorry, I don't follow you... What classes need to be moved into namespaces? AFAIK pretty much all of our classes are in a graphene::xyz namespace, except maybe some unit testing code...

@nathanhourt click https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/html/annotated.html you'll see quite some classes are out of graphene::.

[pmconrad]

Some of these are only inside .c files (e. g. mz_*, deduplicator), some in tests (my_io_class). Should these be documented at all? They are not part of the library API.

[oxarbitrage]

By adding this file patterns 712bbc5 we remove all the stuff coming from c files.

Please check: https://open-explorer.io/doxygen/1851/html/annotated.html

[abitmore]

I didn't save a screenshot of the old page, so don't know what have changed. Here is a screenshot of current page:

I'd say we merge this PR for this release then continue improving it with a new PR in next release. As follow-up, I created #1895 for moving classes into namespaces.

[oxarbitrage]

It seems the squash and merge option is not available in this repo. Should we merge with all the commits ? I think it will be a good idea to have that enabled for some cases.

[abitmore]

You can manually squash them.

git rebase -i origin/develop

It would open a text editor, you leave the first commit with pick, change all other picks to squashs, then force-push.

[abitmore]

After squashed, perhaps better use git commit --amend to update the commit message.

[oxarbitrage]

Thank you @abitmore , just did that.

[oxarbitrage]

need your approval again :)