-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
Docs: check that exports are documented, with check for regression/improvement #55267
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
e604ebf
to
955006b
Compare
X-ref: JuliaDocs/Documenter.jl#1506 |
Documenter reports all of these for
|
Tracking issue #19529 |
Reopening with |
8defce8
to
b3d7f06
Compare
Now checks if the number increases or reduces with appropriate messages for each |
eebe2b9
to
7a59bd7
Compare
7a59bd7
to
ccf7de9
Compare
@mortenpi even for the single online docs build the number of missing docs isn't stable.. for the same base commit I've seen 298 299 300 301 missing docstrings reported. Because of that instead of erroring I've made them elevated log messages in buildkite. https://buildkite.com/julialang/julia-master/builds/40201#annotation-missing-docs |
That seems like a good workaround for now. I think we should merge this and iterate in follow-up PRs. |
I'm hesitating to show any sort of instruction while the number is unstable. People will learn to ignore it, and then when the reason for the instability is fixed it will still be ignored. |
@mortenpi and I were talking about
checkdocs = :public
being the right option, but that does not exist yet.