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

chown does not show up in docs #93

Closed
mbruzek opened this issue May 12, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

chown does not show up in docs #93

mbruzek opened this issue May 12, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@mbruzek
Copy link
Contributor

mbruzek commented May 12, 2015

I can not find the chown method in path.py docs at https://pythonhosted.org/path.py/api.html

It looks like the docs do not recognize the chown method when creating documentation.

Looking at the code it is due to the if statement on line 1136.
https://github.com/jaraco/path.py/blob/master/path.py#L1136

Is there any way we can make the generation of docs include this function?

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented May 13, 2015

I suspect the issue is that the implementation varies based on the os/platform where the documentation is generated. In this case, the docs were generated on Windows where os.chown didn't exist. I think you're right that the implementation should be consistent across platforms, even if it raises an error on unsupported platforms.

@mbruzek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mbruzek commented May 13, 2015

Hello @jaraco,
Thanks for the response. Either the docs were generated on Windows or the doc parser does not recognize functions within an if statement.

I am embarrassed to admit that the chown problem has struck twice (months apart). When using path.py I always refer to the API documentation first. Because of my infrequent use of path.py, I forgot about finding the code for chown on github.

Please notice that I created a pull request to fix the chown problem as you have described.

Thanks again for the response.

  • Matt

@satoon101
Copy link

There are other methods that suffer from the same issue. All of those methods should probably receive the same treatment, as well.

@mbruzek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mbruzek commented May 19, 2015

@satoon101 I was not aware of the other issues. I would be happy to make individual pull requests to fix these so each one can be judged on its own merit.

I haven't got any feedback on PR #94 yet. Don't know if that is normal, or means something else like it is not a good implementation.

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented May 20, 2015

No feedback just means no one has had the time to review. I will get to it in time. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

@jaraco
Copy link
Owner

jaraco commented Jul 13, 2015

Do please feel free to open another issue to capture irregularity of interface for non-present methods.

@jaraco jaraco closed this as completed Jul 13, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants