fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:20:09PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 11:04, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 05:56:13PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> >> On 6 September 2010 17:24, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Monday September 6 2010 08:13:44 Anders Logg wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 08:08:10AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday September 6 2010 05:47:27 Anders Logg wrote:
> >> >> > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:19:03PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote:
> >> >> > > > > Do we have any functionality in place for handling documentation
> >> >> > > > > that should be automatically generated from the C++ interface and
> >> >> > > > > documentation that needs to be added later?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > No, not really.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ok.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > I assume that the documentation we write in the C++ header files
> >> >> > > > > (like Mesh.h) will be the same that appears in Python using
> >> >> > > > > help(Mesh)?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Yes and no, the problem is that for instance overloaded methods will
> >> >> > > > only show the last docstring.
> >> >> > > > So, the Mesh.__init__.__doc__ will just contain the Mesh(std::str
> >> >> > > > file_name) docstring.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It would not be difficult to make the documentation extraction script
> >> >> > > we have (in fenics-doc) generate the docstrings module and just
> >> >> > > concatenate all constructor documentation. We are already doing the
> >> >> > > parsing so spitting out class Foo: """ etc would be easy. Perhaps that
> >> >> > > is an option.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There might be other overloaded methods too. We might try to setle on a
> >> >> > format for these methods, or make this part of the 1% we need to handle
> >> >> > our self.
> >> >>
> >> >> ok. Should also be fairly easy to handle.
> >> >
> >> > Ok.
> >> >
> >> >> > > > > But in some special cases, we may want to go in and handle
> >> >> > > > > documentation for special cases where the Python documentation
> >> >> > > > > needs to be different from the C++ documentation. So there should
> >> >> > > > > be two different sources for the documentation: one that is
> >> >> > > > > generated automatically from the C++ header files, and one that
> >> >> > > > > overwrites or adds documentation for special cases. Is that the
> >> >> > > > > plan?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The plan is currently to write the docstrings by hand for the entire
> >> >> > > > dolfin module. One of the reasons is that we rename/ignores
> >> >> > > > functions/classes in the *.i files, and if we we try to automate the
> >> >> > > > docstring generation I think we should make it fully automatic not
> >> >> > > > just part of it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If we can make it 99% automatic and have an extra file with special
> >> >> > > cases I think that would be ok.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Agree.
> >>
> >> Yes, but we'll need some automated testing to make sure that the 1%
> >> does not go out of sync with the code.
> >> Most likely the 1% can't be handled because it is relatively important
> >> (definitions in *.i files etc.).
> >
> > I imagine that "1%" will be the same as the "1%" that we have special
> > treatment for in the SWIG files anyway, so it makes sense those need
> > special treatment.
>
> I think that we can automate that last 1% too.
>
> > So the idea would be:
> >
> >  1. Document the C++ code in the C++ header files
> >  2. Document the extra Python code in the Python files (?)
> >  3. Document the extra SWIG stuff in a special file
>
> All Python docstrings should be located where the code is.
> In the Python layer (like dolfin/fem.py), or in the extended methods
> in the *.i files for the dolfin/cpp.py module.
>
> We then need to figure out how to change the syntax/name correctly
> such that std::vector, double* etc. are mapped to the correct Python
> arguments/return values, and how to handle the *example* code.
>
> >> >> > > > Also, we will need to change the syntax in all *example* code of the
> >> >> > > > docstrings. Maybe it can be done, but I'll need to give it some more
> >> >> > > > careful thought. We've already changed the approach a few times now,
> >> >> > > > so I really like the next try to close to our final implementation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I agree. :-)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > Another thing to discuss is the possibility of using Doxygen to
> >> >> > > > > extract the documentation. We currently have our own script since
> >> >> > > > > (I assume) Doxygen does not have a C++ --> reST converter. Is that
> >> >> > > > > correct?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I don't think Doxygen has any such converter, but there exist a
> >> >> > > > project http://github.com/michaeljones/breathe
> >> >> > > > which makes it possible to use xml output from Doxygen in much the
> >> >> > > > same way as we use autodoc for the Python module. I had a quick go at
> >> >> > > > it but didn't like the result. No links on the index pages to
> >> >> > > > function etc. So what we do now is better, but perhaps it would be a
> >> >> > > > good idea to use Doxygen to extract the docstrings for all classes
> >> >> > > > and functions, I tried parsing the xml output in the
> >> >> > > > test/verify_cpp_
> >> >> > > > ocumentation.py script and it should be relatively
> >> >> > > > simple to get the docstrings since these are stored as attributes of
> >> >> > > > classes/functions.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Perhaps an idea would be to use Doxygen for parsing and then have our
> >> >> > > own script that works with the XML output from Doxygen?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I did not know we allready used Doxygen to extract information about
> >> >> > class structure from the headers.
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought it was you who implemented the Doxygen documentation extraction?
> >> >
> >> > Duh... I mean that I did not know we used it in fenics_doc, in
> >> > verify_cpp_documentation.py.
> >>
> >> We don't. I wrote this script to be able to test the documentation in
> >> *.rst files against dolfin.
> >> Basically, I parse all files and keep track of the classes/functions
> >> which are defined in dolfin and try to match those up against the
> >> definitions in the documentation (and vise versa) to catch
> >> missing/obsolete documentation.
> >>
> >> >> > What are the differences between using the XML from Doxygen to also
> >> >> > extract the documentation, and the approach we use today?
> >> >>
> >> >> Pros (of using Doxygen):
> >> >>
> >> >>   - Doxygen is developed by people that presumably are very good at
> >> >>     extracting docs from C++ code
> >> >>
> >> >>   - Doxygen might handle some corner cases we can't handle?
> >>
> >> Definitely, and we don't have to maintain it.
> >
> > We would need to maintain the script that extracts data from the
> > Doxygen-generated XML files.
> >
> >> >> Cons (of using Doxygen):
> >> >>
> >> >>   - Another dependency
> >> >
> >> > Which we already have.
> >> >
> >> >>   - We still need to write a script to parse the XML
> >> >
> >> > We should be able to ust the xml parser in docstringgenerator.py.
> >> >
> >> >>   - The parsing of /// stuff from C++ code is very simple
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and this might be just fine. But if it grows we might consider using
> >> > Doxygen.
> >>
> >> But some cases are not handled correctly already (nested classes etc.)
> >> so I vote for Doxygen.
> >
> > Not that I'm insisting on not using Doxygen, but isn't it quite rare
> > that we use nested classes? I think we decided at some point that we
> > wanted to avoid it for some other reason. I don't remember which but
> > it might have been a SWIG problem.
>
> Look at http://www.fenics.org/newdoc/programmers-reference/cpp/function/Function.html
> as a user I would be confused by LocalScratch and GatherScratch.

Those can be easily fixed by letting the script stop parsing when it
finds "private:".

> The documentation here is also rather confusing, yes we can fix it,
> but similar cases will arise in the future.
>
> http://www.fenics.org/newdoc/programmers-reference/cpp/mesh/MeshPrimitive.html

That looks strange because Andre has used an arbitrary mix of "//" and
"///" in his comments. Don't blame my script for that. :-)

--
Anders