Achieve 100% doc coverage #1334

Closed
myronmarston opened this Issue Feb 19, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@myronmarston
Member

myronmarston commented Feb 19, 2014

SemVer requires your public API be documented. I'd like us to be actually SemVer compliant starting with RSpec 3 rather than just "moving towards SemVer compliance" as we've been in 2.x, so we need every public API documented for 3.0. The docs don't have to be great, but we do need public APIs to be labeled as such and APIs we don't intend to be public labeled as non-public.

It would be good to add something to the build to enforce 100% doc coverage. Might be worth using yardstick for this, or we can use a simple rake task like I have in VCR.

@myronmarston myronmarston added this to the 3.0 milestone Feb 19, 2014

@yelled3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@yelled3

yelled3 Mar 2, 2014

Contributor

I'm on it :-)

currently:

Files:          48
Modules:        31 (   21 undocumented)
Classes:        50 (   27 undocumented)
Constants:      27 (   25 undocumented)
Methods:       388 (  202 undocumented)
 44.56% documented
Contributor

yelled3 commented Mar 2, 2014

I'm on it :-)

currently:

Files:          48
Modules:        31 (   21 undocumented)
Classes:        50 (   27 undocumented)
Constants:      27 (   25 undocumented)
Methods:       388 (  202 undocumented)
 44.56% documented
@yelled3

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@yelled3

yelled3 Mar 13, 2014

Contributor

@myronmarston @JonRowe let's keep this open till we fix it back to 100%

@JonRowe - are you working on this or should I?

Contributor

yelled3 commented Mar 13, 2014

@myronmarston @JonRowe let's keep this open till we fix it back to 100%

@JonRowe - are you working on this or should I?

@JonRowe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@JonRowe

JonRowe Mar 13, 2014

Member

You can't reopen pull requests

Member

JonRowe commented Mar 13, 2014

You can't reopen pull requests

@JonRowe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@JonRowe

JonRowe Mar 13, 2014

Member

You're welcome to have at it again though, note if we reverse the param documentation every single @param will need checking to make sure it's @param [Type] variable_name description that makes sense

Member

JonRowe commented Mar 13, 2014

You're welcome to have at it again though, note if we reverse the param documentation every single @param will need checking to make sure it's @param [Type] variable_name description that makes sense

@myronmarston

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@myronmarston

myronmarston Mar 15, 2014

Member

This has been done; closing.

Member

myronmarston commented Mar 15, 2014

This has been done; closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment