This could be an initial part of the implementation. I merely followed my way on making it work with the command I use, but it seems adequate to work with the latest version of the main tool.
Classes: 6 ( 0 undocumented)
Modules: 8 ( 4 undocumented)
Constants: 9 ( 9 undocumented)
Attributes: 5 ( 5 undocumented)
Methods: 47 (30 undocumented)
Total: 75 (48 undocumented)
Elapsed: 4.7s dependency
Fixes usages of rdoc
Fixes Generator to comply with rdoc ~> 4.0.0
Use store to find file path as it's not included in TopLevel on rdoc 4.0
We need this to package sdoc for Fedora, where we have RDoc 4.0.0 already.
Ping, can we merge this and release a new version? Or is there something that blocks it?
I have been working on an upgrade to sdoc to include rdoc 4 support
@zzak Good to know.
Awesome to hear this is in progress. We're running into an incompatibility between NMatrix and Rails 3.x related to rdoc; NMatrix requires rdoc >= 4.0.1, since NMatrix is written in C++ and rdoc can't read C++ init entry points prior to 4.0.1.
Here's the issue: SciRuby/nmatrix#149
Any sense of a timeline? Thanks so much.
(Incidentally, I love SDoc's output. Would definitely consider using with SciRuby / NMatrix.)
Heh. Okay. Can you change this PR to be ~> 4.0.1 instead of 4.0.0?
@zzak Would you like any help on this feature, so we have it sooner? What is actually missing?
@zzak I looked on the code today, and with this (https://gist.github.com/strzibny/7136890) little fix, I was able to use sdoc to generate the documentation involving merging doc dirs with sdoc-merge. Since we don't have automated tests, I am not sure whether this is everything that needs to be done. Do you know about corner cases where it doesn't work? I am willing to work further on this.
@mohawkjohn RDoc 4.0 is shipped with Ruby 2.0, so there is need for sdoc to work with RDoc 4.0.0 as well. If supporting RDoc 4.0.1 requires many other not-compatible changes, then I suggest merge and release a version for RDoc 4.0.0 and afterwards work on RDoc 4.0.1.
I guess I was referring more to the gemspec requirement of "~> 4.0.0". This means it has to be exactly 4.0.0 and not 4.0.1, right? 4.0.1 is a pretty minor revision — just adds support for C++ parsing.
@mohawkjohn That's why I was confused by your comment, ~> 4.0.0 means starting at 4.0.0 up to version 4.1.0 so it covers 4.0.1 just fine. The ~ operator is introduced to cover more minor versions that should not break api/abi compatibility (since major versions usually do that).
Oh, great. I'm perfectly happy then. Thanks for your hard work!
So, I looked into it again, and tried to make a 0.4.0 release candidate for Fedora. This can help people to test it or use it if they need to.
So, what have I done?
Then I made a build and tried to test it against big projects like Katello and generating Rails api using rake doc:rails. Seems that it works.
I will soon update my review request to include the package to Fedora. After you decide to release 0.4.0, I will update the package accordingly. It would be really nice if @zzak branch could be merged with current @voloko master so everybody can submit relevant pull requests.
Also, this is a duplicate of #43 and I will be submitting a new PR soon, could we close this?
Closing in favor of #56