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

Change Doxyfile to include other targets and libs #599

Closed
nkolban opened this issue Sep 29, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

Change Doxyfile to include other targets and libs #599

nkolban opened this issue Sep 29, 2015 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@nkolban
Copy link
Contributor

nkolban commented Sep 29, 2015

The current Doxygen generation does not include source files that are found in all the targets (boards) nor does it include the libs (such as networking). This issue looks to change the Doxygen generation to include that information.

@nkolban
Copy link
Contributor Author

nkolban commented Oct 6, 2015

Changes have been made to the Doxyfile controlling Doxygen generation. The primary changes were:

  • No generation of Latex (HTML only now)
  • Additional directories included in the Doxygen parsing
  • Recursive directory parsing enabled
  • Exclusion of markdown files from doxygen parsing

We also have a Wiki page now that contains instructions for Doxygen usage and maintenance for the project.

@gfwilliams
Copy link
Member

Thanks! you know there is also https://github.com/espruino/Espruino/blob/master/doxygen/README.md for Doxygen info?

In this bug it might be worth thinking about:

Parsing the JSON headers of wrapped functions into Doxygen

Unless Doxygen specifically has an option, the best bet I see is to write a script that reads the C file and parses docs (there's some code in the scripts folder for this), then creates a new H file in a temporary directory with Doxygen-formatted comments in.

That should be enough to trick it into documenting them properly.

Making \brief

There's a flag in Doxygen to use up to the first fullstop as the brief. It might be worth having that on if you're finding they're not documented properly right now?

@nkolban nkolban closed this as completed Oct 6, 2015
@nkolban nkolban self-assigned this Oct 13, 2015
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

2 participants