Pass documentation along with signatures #627
Conversation
src/xref2/subst.ml
Outdated
| || List.length s.module_type_of_invalidating_modules > 0 | ||
| then false | ||
| else compiled | ||
| let really_compiled = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
needs_recompilation might be a better name here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went for dont_recompile to keep the compiled = t.compiled && dont_recompile pattern.
|
There are test failures in <=4.06 though, which will need addressing. |
This field correspond to the top comment of the signature, which is removed from the 'items' list.
This reverts commit d53ba9f. This is no longer necessary since we don't loose the top comments anymore (see parent).
Handle the 'doc' field of signatures in the generator. Doc attached to a definition is no longer rendered in its expansion. This will be fixed the next commits.
If there is no documentation attached to the declaration, use the expansion signature's doc (follow recursively in case of functors, etc...). This doesn't apply to module aliases.
Like module signatures, extract the top-comment from the loader and pass it through. Render it the same way as modules.
Julow
force-pushed
the
top-comment-handling
branch
from
cc2445a to
910995d
Compare
Julow
force-pushed
the
top-comment-handling
branch
from
910995d to
dadc5cc
Compare
|
The tests failures were caused by the comment not represented by a floating attribute with OCaml module M : sig
(** Doc. *)
endhowever it is in module M : sig
(** Doc. *)
endIt is present in |
|
Testing with 4.06.1, using current master odoc on module M : sig
(** Doc. *)
endI don't get the documentation in module M, so it's not a regression. Also, I get |
|
Indeed not a regression. I missed the warning. |
| @@ -27,21 +27,18 @@ <h1> | |||
| <p> | |||
| Some additional comments. | |||
| </p> | |||
| <h2 id="type"> | |||
| <a href="#type" class="anchor"></a>Type | |||
| </h2> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This merge broke the HTML structure. This h2 has nothing to do here, it should still be in odoc-content.
Before this PR, the top-comment of a signature was handled unevenly and sometimes dropped.
This PR improves how the top-comment is passed and implement @lpw25's suggestion.
An issue remain in #478, the documentation from an
@inlineinclude is not in the preamble and is not used for the synopsis due to being handled too late. This will be fixed in a follow-up PR.