Support parsing directives in comment of methods, structs, struct members and package doc

[longit644]

This PR add support for parsing directives in comment of methods, structs, and struct members

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: longit644
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign sttts for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @longit644. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[thockin]

Hi. I am currently overhauling gnengo (#259) and looking at PRs.

This PR doesn't explain WHY you need this, and keeping a fork of ast is not something we really want to do.

IF we were to consider this it would be on v2, and I don't think we want to at first glance.

[longit644]

Hi @thockin,

Thank you for your response.

This PR adds parsing directive to support another new marker creation method for generator. It uses directive syntax //k8s:..., similar to how recent Go versions have transitioned from // +build to //go:build

If you believe this adds value to gengo, I would be happy to create another PR on v2.

[thockin]

Do those not get retained as comments?

I don't think we want to keep a fork of AST for this, especially after we move to packages.Load (PR pending), which does all the parsing internally.

[longit644]

No, directives are not retained within the comments. They are filtered out during the parsing process.

As for keeping the fork of AST, I agree that may not be the most efficient approach. Instead, we could consider re-implementing the directive check or exploring alternative solutions.

[thockin]

I don't object to the goal, but I think it's trickier with packages.Load - try from my v2 PR as a base?