Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: add initial constants module documentation #6505

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

jasnell
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell commented May 1, 2016

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc (constants)

Description of change

This is a work in progress

Begin documentation of the constants module.
/cc @nodejs/documentation @addaleax @nodejs/crypto

Note to @nodejs/crypto: there appear to be several of the openssl related constants that are not recommended for use. I'd recommend that we indicate those and possible even do a hard deprecation for those at some point (but not in this PR)

Refs: #6492, #6494

@jasnell jasnell added wip Issues and PRs that are still a work in progress. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. labels May 1, 2016
#### constants.RSA_PKCS1_PSS_PADDING
#### constants.POINT_CONVERSION_COMPRESSED
#### constants.POINT_CONVERSION_UNCOMPRESSED
3### constants.POINT_CONVERSION_HYBRID
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Markdown typo here :)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sigh ... fat fingers


### constants.X_OK

Flag indicating that the file can be executed by the calling process.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I’d add something like:

This flag is meant for use with [`fs.access()`][].

to (each of?) these, otherwise people might confuse them with O_RDONLY etc.

[`fs.access()`]: fs.html#fs_fs_access_path_mode_callback

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

addaleax commented May 1, 2016

Cool, definitely thanks for the work you put into this!

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented May 1, 2016

Of course. It's not very helpful for me to complain about there not being documentation for something unless I'm willing to help get the documentation put together, right? ;-)

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

this is big enough I think it warrants direct ctc coversation

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented May 1, 2016

@nodejs/ctc ... Any thoughts on this?
@Fishrock123 ... Any specific concerns?

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe
Copy link
Contributor

Would a table not suite the plenty constants better?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented May 2, 2016

Possibly. Went with this initially because it's a closer fit to the
existing doc style. Personally I'd prefer something more compact tho
(actually, what I'd really prefer is for these to be documented with and
exposed by the modules for which they are most relevant)
On May 1, 2016 5:08 PM, "Robert Jefe Lindstädt" [email protected]
wrote:

Would a table not suite the plenty constants better?


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6505 (comment)

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe
Copy link
Contributor

Ah, you mean like the "events"-section. That sounds even better. Would be hugely favoring this.


The following error constants are adapted directly from the POSIX `errno`
standards. See http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/errno.3.html for more
details about specific error constants.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Link to the Errors documentation page maybe?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can, but those are far from complete. We should either fill those out there more or move that detail into here. How those are documented leaves much to be desired.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

Fishrock123 commented May 2, 2016

Is the object returned by constants actually read-only? Should we be freezing this or something?

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

addaleax commented May 2, 2016

@Fishrock123 No, only the constants themselves are all read-only properties, at least right now.


### constants.ECHILD

Indicates that there are no child processes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing period at the end of the line.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented May 2, 2016

@cjihrig ... Thanks for the edits, I have yet to go through and do a proofread through this. Before I got too far into it tho, we need to decide if we even want to document these in this way or take a different approach. I wouldn't want you to spend too much time doing a proofread if we ultimately decide not to do this.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented May 2, 2016

Closing in favor of #6534

@jasnell jasnell closed this May 2, 2016
@jasnell jasnell removed the ctc-agenda label May 2, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. wip Issues and PRs that are still a work in progress.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants