Add documentation comments to the .NET library. #39703
Comments
|
I think this belongs to the main repo instead of godot-docs. |
This was done here: 6d0e8f9 |
|
I'm talking specifically about the part of the C# API that's not auto-generated: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/tree/master/modules/mono/glue/GodotSharp/GodotSharp/Core |
|
@neikeq What are the goals here, do we want to document every single class and method? I can do that if it's desired. EDIT: I will do this myself once my other PRs that touch the Mono module are merged. I don't want to cause even more conflicts with myself. EDIT 2: Eh I'll just add the documentation now and rebase those other PRs later. |
|
Yes, that would be ideal. Since this part of the API is not generated, we should also try to follow the xml comments convention more closely (the generated API adds everything into a |
|
What's remaining on this? |
|
The
A lot of this code is probably something the user won't use directly so it may not need to be documented, I would say the attributes ( There are editor projects in the mono module that are also undocumented but this issue probably doesn't care about those, these would be nice to document for developers looking to contribute to the mono module:
|
|
@Anutrix The operators are also undocumented. They're a minor thing to write documentation for, but Godot now has entries for them in the XML class reference, and C# IDEs show a warning about missing docs for operators. I plan to write documentation for operators for both core and C# but I'm waiting on #53452 (which I could still improve, so no rush merging it). EDIT: The operators are now documented as of #54581 |
|
I have just updated my pull request on #60128 to have all of the requested files documented. |
|
@godotengine/dotnet Is this sufficiently solved by #60128 or is there more that needs to be documented? And if so, is that "more" still a good task for first time contributors? |
Your Godot version:
3.2
Issue description:
It seems that the documentation data are already there,
, but the writers of the C# library forgot to add the documentation comments to the C# library in lots of cases.
Since the data are already there, can't it be done mechanically (by some kind of code) to insert method descriptions into the C# library (like below) so that C# users could see the documentation while they code? In the example below, the usage example is GDScript, so it doest not exactly match C#, but many users will be able to guess the C# code from that, and it is better than having nothing. Even if you do not like having GDScript example in C#, you could then at least add the summary ("Converts one or ...") part.
URL to the documentation page (if already existing):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: