Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
Do not create collaboration diagrams in doxygen docs 
The diagrams do not really add much value and do not highlight the important concepts
of classes, confusing the user and making things looks more complicated than they are
  • Loading branch information
@wonder-sk
wonder-sk committed Sep 6, 2014
1 parent c454617 commit 8d598d4
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion cmake_templates/Doxyfile.in
View file
Expand Up @@ -1511,7 +1511,7 @@ CLASS_GRAPH = YES
# indirect implementation dependencies (inheritance, containment, and
# class references variables) of the class with other documented classes.

COLLABORATION_GRAPH = YES
COLLABORATION_GRAPH = NO

# If the GROUP_GRAPHS and HAVE_DOT tags are set to YES then doxygen
# will generate a graph for groups, showing the direct groups dependencies
Expand Down

10 comments on commit 8d598d4

@nyalldawson
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wonder-sk This was a great move. On the same topic, do you think we could remove the "References"/"Referenced by" sections from the API docs? IMO these clutter the api docs and again make the api seem MUCH more complicated than it is. They are only useful for QGIS devs (not plugin devs), and I suspect most devs would be using QtCreator or a similar IDE which would show this information anyway.

@nyalldawson
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wonder-sk ditto for private slots/private functions/private attributes...

@wonder-sk
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@nyalldawson Good idea, I'm removing those too...

@nyalldawson
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wonder-sk what about the "Definition at " - can we strip that too?

@wonder-sk
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@nyalldawson I think so - removed too. The docs look much better now!

@nyalldawson
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wonder-sk thanks! I totally agree... Simplifying the appearance of the docs is a huge step forward in usability.

@timlinux
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sniff - I actually like and use those diagrams a lot....

@timlinux
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(not saying you have to bring them back though because I am probably some sort of minority...)

@wonder-sk
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@timlinux Hm... Do you like inheritance [1] or collaboration [2] diagrams? Because I have removed just the latter ones which were in most cases producing images without much sense - like [2] for QgsVectorLayer

[1] http://qgis.org/api/2.0/classQgsVectorLayer__inherit__graph.png
[2] http://qgis.org/api/2.0/classQgsVectorLayer__coll__graph.png

@timlinux
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I kinda referred to them both a lot - but no worries I agree they probably get a bit overwhelming.

Please sign in to comment.