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

Make kotlinc adapted rule comments internal #3190

Closed
BraisGabin opened this issue Oct 31, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3192
Closed

Make kotlinc adapted rule comments internal #3190

BraisGabin opened this issue Oct 31, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3192
Milestone

Comments

@BraisGabin
Copy link
Member

Some of our rules are adaptations from other rules in the kotlin compiler or other sources. We usually add a comment in the code poiting this out and that's good. This way we give credit and in case of bug we can check the source to see if they fixed it already.

But those comments are appearing in our documentation, for example: https://detekt.github.io/detekt/style.html#uselesscallonnotnull or #3187 (review)

I think that this references should not appear in the documentation because they give nearly 0 value to our users and it can be missleading.

My proposal is to remove those comments from the double asterisk comment block and move it to a single asterisk comment block. What do you think?

@arturbosch arturbosch changed the title Improve documentation Make kotlinc adapted rule comments internal Oct 31, 2020
@BraisGabin BraisGabin changed the title Make kotlinc adapted rule comments internal Make kotlin adapted rule comments internal Nov 1, 2020
@BraisGabin BraisGabin changed the title Make kotlin adapted rule comments internal Make kotlinc adapted rule comments internal Nov 1, 2020
@schalkms
Copy link
Member

schalkms commented Nov 1, 2020

That’s actually a very good idea. Please go ahead.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants