Support module documentation

[pawamoy]

Does it support module documentation?

[tomchristie]

Nope. I guess we might consider a pull request for it, but it's otherwise not a priority for me right now.

[pawamoy]

I'll try to open a PR later then 🙂 At first sight it seems like it would not be too complicated. The AutoDocProcessor.RE regexp is OK. I think import_from_string will need an update, as well as AutoDocProcessor.run to prevent trying to render a signature for a module.

[pawamoy]

I eventually wrote my own mkdocs plugin, so I will not send a PR here. Got inspiration from your work so thank you. I will make sure to credit you in the readme since I stole your get_params function 😛 (already credited in code itself).

[StephenBrown2]

Wow, that's a pretty great demo gif. It would be wonderful if the two projects could be combined, as I know httpx and other encode projects could certainly benefit from the extra easy docs.

[pawamoy]

Wow, that's a pretty great demo gif.

Thanks 😄

It would be wonderful if the two projects could be combined, as I know httpx and other encode projects could certainly benefit from the extra easy docs.

I don't think it will be possible, or easy, or if it makes sense to combine them, because I went ahead and implemented a lot of features (and planning more, with configuration options), so it would mean a lot of (re)write for mkautodoc to match up thoses feature.

However! My code is currently badly designed (it was on purpose, to iterate quickly and see what was possible), and ideally would be refactored as a plugin+extension combo, so mkdocstrings, which is a plugin only right now, would totally benefit from stealing more from mkautodoc. I also gladly accept contributions of course.

For more information on the immediate future of mkdocstrings, see the refactor issue and the related mkdocs issue.