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

[WIP]: Update contributing #1162

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

[WIP]: Update contributing #1162

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

joshbruce
Copy link
Member

Marked version: 0.3.19

Markdown flavor: n/a

Description

Update contributing file with description of Marked architecture and other helpful tidbits for contributing to the project.

Contributor

  • Test(s) exist to ensure functionality and minimize regresstion (if no tests added, list tests covering this PR); or,
  • no tests required for this PR.
  • If submitting new feature, it has been documented in the appropriate places.

Committer

In most cases, this should be a different person than the contributor.

  • Draft GitHub release notes have been updated.
  • CI is green (no forced merge required).
  • Merge PR

@joshbruce
Copy link
Member Author

@UziTech: Wondering if we should have more detailed descriptions for the various test scripts in package.json. Thoughts?

@joshbruce joshbruce mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2018
8 tasks
Copy link
Member

@UziTech UziTech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we should have the variables/functions listed here. They are most likely going to change in the future and this is one more thing we would have to remember to update or it will quickly become stale.

This would be the type of information we should put as comments directly in the code so people reading the code could get a better idea of what everything is. Then when things are updated the comments get updated as well.

@davisjam
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with @UziTech.

@joshbruce
Copy link
Member Author

I tend to agree as well. Having said that, I'm not sure these things will change that much. The concept of putting them here was to begin teasing out the current architecture for other contributors; namely @intcreator.

I will start submitting refactoring PRs with minor code changes and updated comments. We could also run something like TypeDoc over the library to help generate more complete documentation. Tagging @styfle for that one.

@styfle
Copy link
Member

styfle commented Mar 26, 2018

@joshbruce I like what you did in the other PR where the comments linked to the CommonMark spec.

I agree with @UziTech and @davisjam — no reason to write out all the functions in the source code here.

As for generating docs...it looks like TypeDoc only works with .ts files so maybe we could use JSDoc instead.

@joshbruce
Copy link
Member Author

@styfle: I only mentioned typedoc as a "sorta like" notion - not a specific solution. This PR will most likely get scaled back.

Putting the comments in the code itself will take a bit longer and involved more PRs. Leaving this one alive primarily for the new npm scripts.

@styfle
Copy link
Member

styfle commented Mar 27, 2018

@joshbruce Why not close this PR and create a new one with only the changes that are necessary?

@joshbruce
Copy link
Member Author

Honestly? Having it open just made it easy for me to pull up as a reference while submitting the other PRs and I'm not sure what would be left. @UziTech is better equipped to capture a description of each of the test npm scripts.

@joshbruce joshbruce closed this Mar 27, 2018
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants