John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
> This patch adds an explicit section tag to all QAPIDoc
> sections. Members/Features are now explicitly tagged as such, with the
> name now being stored in a dedicated "name" field (which qapidoc.py was
> not actually using anyway.)
>
> WIP: Yeah, the difference between "tagged" and "untagged" sections is
> now pretty poorly named, and explicitly giving "untagged" sections an
> "UNTAGGED" tag is ... well, worse. but mechanically, this accomplishes
> what I need for the series.
>
> Please suggest better naming conventions, keeping in mind that I
> currently have plans for a future patch that splits the "UNTAGGED" tag
> into "INTRO" and "DETAILS" tags. But, we still need a meta-name for the
> category of sections that are "formerly known as untagged" but cannot be
> called "freeform" because that name is used for the category of
> docblocks that are not attached to an entity (but happens to be
> comprised entirely of "formerly known as untagged" sections.)
>
> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
A free-form doc comment consists of just one untagged section, actually.
I don't remember whether anything relies on "just one".
Sure, yes. Sorry, I keep thinking of documentation as containing "any number of sections" but keep eliding the fact that our parser implementation currently will never actually create multiple adjacent "untagged" sections.
I don't even change this anywhere even in my offline WIP, so it's just me being over-general.
(I don't think it winds up being relevant or mattering to anything in this series or my larger project beyond some word choices.)
The term "tagged" is rooted in doc comment syntax.
docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst section "Definition documentation":
Definition documentation starts with a line naming the definition,
followed by an optional overview, a description of each argument (for
commands and events), member (for structs and unions), branch (for
alternates), or value (for enums), a description of each feature (if
any), and finally optional tagged sections.
Sadly, this isn't fully accurate anymore.
Descriptions start with '\@name:'. The description text must be
indented [...]
A tagged section begins with a paragraph that starts with one of the
following words: "Since:", "Returns:", "Errors:", "TODO:". It ends with
the start of a new section.
The second and subsequent lines of tagged sections must be indented
[...]
Nothing about untagged sections. These are sections that aren't
descriptions or tagged. Example:
# @Returns: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
# sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
# aliqua.
#
# Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
# nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
#
# Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
# cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
##
Here, the tagged "Returns" section ends after "aliqua." Why? Because
"Ut enim" isn't indented. The untagged section ends after "pariatur."
We parse a definition doc comment as a sequence of sections.
The first one is the overview.
Member / argument descriptions, if any, are next.
Then we may have any number of tagged or untagged sections. If I
remember correctly, you'd like to banish them. Let's pretend they can't
exist here.
I think you're referring to my desire to banish "untagged" sections from appearing *between* "tagged" sections. Yes, that's still a desire; though I make no movement on it in this series as sent to list, and this change is entirely unrelated to that desire.
(It's more related to being able to distinguish features from members, and later, distinguishing intro/details. This patch still serves a purpose even without the inliner or the complexities it brings, but serves both needs.)
((Reminder: the reason for this desire is because "tagged sections" are rendered in html as a two-column list, and free paragraphs appearing between list entries looks bad in the rendered documentation, because it means ending the table, starting paragraph(s), then starting a new table. If free text is meant to be associated with a specific member/feature/section-group, it should be marked up (in SOME way) so that the renderer can achieve that grouping visually.
(There will be a standalone patch that implements this restriction and we can debate this there, I'm only giving you context here.)))
Then we may have a "Features:" line followed by feature descriptions.
Finally, we may have any number of tagged or untagged sections.
Each of these sections is represented as an instance of type Section,
and the entire definition doc as an instance of type QAPIDoc.
Section has a member @tag of type str.
For tagged sections, it's the tag, i.e "Since", "Returns", ... Obvious
enough.
For overview and other untagged sections, it's None. Still obvious.
For descriptions, it's the name of the thing being described. Less than
obvious. Note that descriptions are actually instances of ArgSection, a
subtype of Section, which prevents confusion with tagged sections.
Note that this patch changes this as well; it becomes "member" or "feature" as appropriate and the name is moved into a dedicated name field that belongs to the ArgSection class.
(Turns out legacy qapidoc doesn't use this stored name at all anyway, it fetches the name via the linked feature/member instead.)
QAPIDoc has the overview in member @body, member / argument descriptions
in @args, feature descriptions in @features, and the remaining sections
in @sections.
I'm in favor of cleaning this up some.
I think we can keep the Section name.
Moving the name of the thing being described from @tag to @name is good.
What value to put into @tag then? Whatever suits you.
What suits me is "member" and "feature". :)
Perhaps we should rename @tag to avoid undue ties to tagged sections.
@kind would work for me.
Sold!
Value None for untagged sections is fine with me. If a string suits you
better, that's fine, too. "untagged", "plain", I don't know, propose
something.
For static typing reasons, an explicit tag is preferred to distinguish from it being "optional".
I could cope with any of:
"plain",
"text",
"plaintext",
"paragraphs",
"unstructured",
"free"
... keeping in mind that I do intend to "split" this tag/kind into "intro" and "details" later. i.e. this is a temporary tag/kind label.
I think I like "text" the most because it says the least. What about you?
@body, @args, and so forth aren't exactly great names. If they truly
annoy or confuse you, feel free to propose better ones.
I believe they can be removed entirely once the old qapidoc is sunset, leaving only .sections[] behind.
This removes the temptation to pick out sections "out of order".
We only need the list of sections in their source order to generate the appropriate rST.
(Note: the inliner actually does need to filter sections somewhat to do its inlining magic, but we'll talk about that later. All you need to know right now is that my WIP does not utilize any field except .sections[], so the others can in fact be dropped as redundant once we make the switch. This patch helps enable the paradigm of "everything you need to render a section is contained within the Section object itself" which lends itself well to the new transmogrifier, the goal of always processing/rendering in source order, and facilitating the mechanics of the inliner.)
...
In case I got too rambly, my action items for this patch are:
- fix the test (already done)
- rename tag to kind
- rename "untagged" to "text", possibly changing it again pending your feedback.
--js