-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 482
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
Tool for documentation coverage #516
Comments
If you mean docstrings, then it is possible to add to the linter "D103 Missing docstring in public function". There are currently 204 hits for it on However my preferred way is not to build the Documentation with sphinx from docstrings but have several markdown files and use 'mkdocs' package the way FastApi does it. The explanations and formatting doesn't clog the docstrings, plus docs can be updated without touching the code. I don't know a way to automate coverage here though, so it is a bit more work. |
Interesting. Do you have links or a high level view of that? How do the doc-strings appear in the interactive python help |
Here is an example of a docstring appearing on mouse hover in vs code. It is short, much shorter than a Docs website page would be on this function. And I suggest that docstrings stay concise and just cover what the PEP suggests. I see it as a "reference" in Diataxis definition. How do you see it? ![]() I gave FastAPI as an example of docs decoupled from docstrings. This FastAPI docs page goes into a lot more detail than any docstring. The website and individual pages are structured in the order which is best for learning, not for storing code methods in a file like in sphinx docs. |
Might be nice to add something to interrogate how many functions/ methods are documented in the code-base.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: