Addressing Issue 1809

[Sanjurjo7]

Added to docstring for Flask.register_blueprint to clarify kwargs. Was unsure of the conventions for using :ref: but figured this fit, please let me know if there's a better way to do that.

[jeffwidman]

You should review PEP 257, as there are a couple of docstring conventions you're missing.

[Sanjurjo7]

Got it. Thanks for the reference, will give it an update this evening.

[ThiefMaster]

The first word should be "Register" (command-style)

The docstring is a phrase ending in a period. It prescribes the function or method's effect as a command ("Do this", "Return that"), not as a description; e.g. don't write "Returns the pathname ...".

The code-ish parts should be wrapped in double backticks to format them as code (maybe run sphinx and build the docs locally to look at the results)

[davidism]

I appreciate the effort, but this isn't ready to merge. This doesn't read at all like the other docs. It has multiple grammar issues. It's not formatted correctly. Please review other documentation examples.

[Sanjurjo7]

I'm replacing the references to the kwargs with :param kwarg: is that the bit you mean should be set apart with double backticks @ThiefMaster?

[Sanjurjo7]

How's that. Read up on reST in Sphinx, but I'm not sure how to run Sphinx locally, honestly.

[ThiefMaster]

You just install it using pip and then use the Makefile in the docs folder to build the HTML docs by running make html

[Sanjurjo7]

Okay, this format is much better, but I need to know how to get that line with the reference to the blueprints page set up correctly. What did I do wrong there?

[davidism]

I'm going to merge this, then move it over to the documentation for Blueprint, and clean up a few other things. Thanks for the initiative.

[Sanjurjo7]

It was a good learning experience for me, thanks for all the feedback!

[geusebi]

Maybe that's a stupid question but, do register_blueprint actually handle root_path, template_folder and so on? Also why the first argument is the name of the blueprint? Shouldn't it be the actual blueprint?
This docstring looks more like a good docstring for the Blueprint constructor.
Feel free to ignore this post if I'm wrong :)
GE

[untitaker]

This PR seems to be completely incorrect as blueprint.name is accessed further below.

[untitaker]

@davidism Could you take a look at this again?