I'm looking at requiring my team to document their code more thoroughly for some major upcoming projects and to make life a little less painful, I am steering towards XML documentation generators such as Sandcastle, Doxygen or Box Live Documenter.
What are the key considerations I should keep in mind when evaluating the best option and what experiences have led you to a particular decision?
For me the key considerations would be:
Fully automated: Can it be set up in such a way so that pretty much
no outside work is required to
create or edit the documentation.
Fully styled: Can the documentation be fully styled so
that it looks great in a wiki or pdf
after it’s generated. I should be
able to change colors, font sizes,
layouts, etc.
Good Filtering: Can I select only the items I want to be
generated. I should be able to
filter the namespaces, file types,
classes, etc.
Customization: Can I include headers, footers, custom elements,
etc.
I found Doxygen could do all of this. Our workflow is as follows:
Developer makes a change to the code
They update the documentation tags right above the code they just changed
We click a generate button
Doxygen will then extract all the XML documentation from the code, filter it to only include the classes and methods we want, and apply the CSS styling we’ve pre-made for it. Our end result is an internal wiki that looks the way we want, and doesn’t require editing.
Extra: We have all our projects in various git repositories. We pull all these down to one root folder and generate the docs form this root folder..
Would be interested to know how others are automating even further..?
Who is paying for the documentation and why? (is the system stable enough, does it add enough value)
Who is going to read it, and why is she not using a more effective communication channel?
(if correct mostly distance in time/place)
Who is going to keep it up to date.
When are you going to destroy it? (Automatically if it hasn't been read or updated in the past three months?)
I mostly prefer better code to make my life less painful, over more documentation, but I like scenario & unit tests and a high level architecture description.
[edit] Documentation costs time and money to write and keep up to date. JavaDoc style documentation has a serious detrimental effect on the amount of code simultaneously visible and might be a good idea for the developers using the code, but not for those writing it.
Related
I'm currently trying to make some speed improvements to one of my sites, and I'm looking at Modernizer usage.
Previously all of my javascript (including Modernizer) was lumped into one big js file. I've now removed Modernizer and it sits inline in the head section of the page. For clarity, it is a custom build.
However, not all feature detects are equal - some features benefit from being detected quickly while others can wait.
For instance, detecting webp support is pretty important, because I assume downloading a jpeg then another webp version sort of defeats the object of the feature.
Then, there are things like pointer/touch support, which don't affect layout as such and are more to do with interaction - so they can wait.
With that in mind, the obvious thing is to put two instances of Modernizer in the page - one for the important stuff at the top, and one for the rest at the bottom.
However, I've been unable to find anything on this topic. I guess that leads me to ask two questions: is it possible? And if it is - is it a sensible idea?
It definitively is possible to have two instances of Modernizr on one page; but in order to have that you have to manually rename the global object to something else since Modernizr is exposed to window directly:
e.Modernizr = Modernizr // e is internal ref. to window object
}(window, document);
This however may be considered a dirty patch since you have to alter the production code (& to maintain that alteration through update cycles manually), download and execute exactly the same basic functionality twice, which is less optimal.
Another approach would be to build all that is needed immediately for first batch of (essential) tests and than to utilize Modernizr.addTest (it has to be included in build) later on, for non-essential functionality.
Source and doc-like comments.
Of course, you'd have to write your tests. You may relay on official Modernizr tests, but addTest called outside of the Modernizr's factory method lacks some useful methods (for example, things like Modernizr's internal createElement()).
You have to make choices since there is no way to subsequently add other tests out of the box.
Why some data on server-side are still stored in DBC files, not in SQL-DB? In particular - spells (spells.dbc). What for?
We have a lot of bugs in spells and it's very hard to understand what's wrong with spell, but it's harder to find it spell...
Spells, Talents, achievements, etc... Are mostly found in DBC files because that is the way Blizzard did it back in the day. It's true that in 2019 this is a pretty outdated way to work indeed. Databases are getting stronger and more versatile and having hard-coded data is proving to be hard to work with. Hell, DBCs aren't really that heavy anyways and the reason why we haven't made this change yet is that... We have no other reason other than it being a task that takes a bit of time and It is monotonous to do.
We are aware that Trinity core has already made this change but they have far more contributors than we do if that serves as an excuse!
Nonetheless, this is already in our to-do list if you check the issue tracker at the main repository.
While It's true that we can't really edit DBC files because we would lose all the progress when re-extracted or lost the files, however, we can modify spells in a C++ file called SpellMgr.
There we have a function called SpellMgr::LoadDbcDataCorrections().
The main problem while doing this change is that we have to modify the core to support this change, and the function above contains a lot of corrections. Would need intense testing to make sure nothing is screwed up in the process.
In here by altering bits you can remove or add certain properties to the desired spells instead of touching the hard coded dbc files.
If you want an example, in this link, I have changed an Archimonde spell to have no cast time.
NOTE:
In this line, the commentary about damage can be miss leading but that's because I made a mistake and I haven't finished this pull request yet as of 18/04/2019.
The work has been started, notably by Kaev. I think at least 3 DBCs are now useless server side (but probably still needed client side, they are called DataBaseClient for a reason) like item.dbc.
Also, the original philosophy (for ALL cores, not just AC) was that we would not touch DBC because we don't do custom modifications, so there was no interest in having them server side.
But we wanted to change this and started to make them available directly in the DB, if you wish to help with that, it would be nice!
Why?
Because when emulation started, dbc fields were 90% unknown. So, developers created a parser for them that just required few code changes to support new fields as soon as their functionality was discovered.
Now that we've discovered 90% of required dbc fields and we've also created some great conversion tools for DBC<->SQL, it's just a matter of "effort".
SQL conversion is useful to avoid using of client data on server (you can totally overwrite them if you don't want to go against EULA) or just extends/customize them.
Here you are the issue about DBC->SQL conversion: https://github.com/azerothcore/azerothcore-wotlk/issues/584
Within a DWT Template Building Block, we can use a few "free" variables such as ##Component.Title## or ##Component.ID## as well as built-in DWT functions.
I didn't realize we can also get a component's schema description with ##Component.Description## or ##Description##.
The out-of-the-box Default Dreamweaver Component Design has a good set of examples, along with the Tridion Cook book's iteration example, and SDL Live Content.
How else could I find other allowed built-in DWT functions and variables, programmatic or otherwise?
In other words, I wouldn't have thought ##Description## was even available in DWT without seeing an example first (not that I have a use for it yet).
Edit (June 8, 2013): I did find additional information on SDL Live Content (requires login). We can of course use available Package variables as described in the documentation.
Researching a bit, I found that if we go to the tridion.contenmanager.config file, we will discover the node, which references to the Dreamweaver mediator type:
<mediator matchMIMEType="text/x-tcm-dreamweaver" type="Tridion.ContentManager.Templating.Dreamweaver.DreamweaverMediator" />
This namespace can be found inside Tridion.ContentManager.Templating.dll
Decompiling is the best way to find out what is inside and learn something. Since it is .Net code, that will not be a problem, there is many free good tools available. I'm using lately JustDecompile
I did not go too deep into the code, but I can see that there is a TridionObjectSource class, with a number of Constants for reserved words, like:
ReservedNameTitle
ReservedNameDescription
Searching where this constants are used on the code, can help to better understand what they do, and the way the Dreamweaver Mediator works inside.
Seems like an interesting learning exercise
I take it that you've searched the documentation for the answer and come up empty. I suggest that you go to the relevant part of the LiveContent documentation and add a comment. This will reach the documentation team directly, and I'm sure they'll be very interested to hear of a feature that isn't properly covered. With a bit of luck they'll update it, and you'll have done us all a favour.
I have some sympathy for the "help yourself" approach too, but if you find a feature by your own analysis of the software, and it gets removed in a later release, you won't have a leg to stand on to complain about this. So help Tridion to get the feature documented, and then it's there to use with confidence.
As we know that we can assign the variables to Adobe illustrator file. Is it possible to access these variables by using Drupal 7 variables feature?
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: This is theoretically possible, but.
What you're referring to really amounts to rewriting some of the fundamental underpinnings of the internet. This would require, at minimum, extremely innovative development and entirely recreating several major software components. For example:
1) Users' browsers read and render hypertext. They would need to be rewritten to understand AI equivalents of links, pages, and other internet standards.
2) Javacript, Jquery, and other client-side components would need to be rebuilt from scratch. You would also need to invent a new CSS and DOM that their replacements can understand.
3) Apache .... would be mostly okay with some minor tweaks. One or two new extensions at most.
4) PHP (which stands for "PHP hypertext preprocessor" and not "PHP advanced graphical tool") would need to be entirely redone, along with all of it's extensions, integrations, and fundamental concepts.
5) Drupal and all its modules (which are build on the assumption that the output will be hypertext) would need to be substantially retooled. In particular, you would need a replacement for PHPTemplate that accesses AI objects.
So: There's a lot to do. I would say "let's get started," except that 6) AI is a proprietary product and we don't have licenses to develop and extend it.
I think it depends on what you want to do with the resulting file. Are you thinking of a variable data Illustrator document that would be generated from the values in Drupal? If so, I think that is very possible. The Illustrator file format specification is somewhat available, you would just need to process the file without the help of Illustrator (which may present some challenges).
If you want to generate something that would be viewable in a browser you're better off using SVG with some sort of placeholder that you could replace with regular expressions or maybe some XPath queries to get the nodes you want to manipulate and then adding your values there.
As Dominic said, the end use isn't very clear here so the answers are really dependent on what you need to accomplish.
Just found StyleCop, looks like something worth using for my projects. Then I found out you could use it with ReSharper (a tool I've also never used). So I downloaded ReSharper, as well as StyleCop for ReSharper. I'm just a bit confused about it, though:
With just StyleCop installed (no ReSharper), I get yelled at for referring directly to private variables in code-behind. It wants me to instead do this.variable. Alright, fine.
If I use just ReSharper, it tells me to remove all of the 'this' calls I just added. Which one is better?
If I use ReSharper + StyleCop for ReSharper, it now tells me to add 'this' to all private member references (just like StyleCop did all by itself). However, now it also wants me to add 'this' to all of the controls I'm referencing from the .aspx page (i.e., Label.Text = this.variable -> this.Label.Text = this.variable).
I'm so confused. What is the best standard to follow? Or am I just fine doing it the way I am now (Label.Text = variable)?
The key point is consistency. Your particular formatting with regard to this point comes down to personal preference.
Does the extra wordiness provide additional clarity as to which variable you're referencing or does it obscure the meaning by flooding the page with extra text?
This is a judgment call. They do enforce other rules that make sense; however, a large part of what they do is enforce consistency. As #Martin said, feel free to disable rules that don't make sense for your workflow.
Sorry when working on a team it all comes down to understanding the politics; after all, we work to get paid!
If the person that decided your next
pay raise uses StyleCop, then you
should always include the “this.”
likewise if the boss uses ReSharper
you should do what ReSharper says.
There are a lot more important wars to win this, e.g. 10,000 line classes, over sized method
If you are luckly enough to decide what tools (and coding standards) are used yourself, then I would just choose ReSharper and read the “clean code” book.
I think it's up to you which conventions you want to follow (it's a matter of personal preferences). At least in ReSharper, you can edit the rules to no longer show certain warnings/hints.