Forum: Ruby RDoc 2.3 now with Darkfish, without CHM and extra HTML templates

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 03:25
(Received via mailing list)
This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
Granger’s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:

http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/

rdoc_chm and rdoc_html_templates have been split off from RDoc and
released separately as unmaintained software. I don’t plan to make any
future changes or updates to rdoc_html_templates (which are for the
old HTML generator) ever, but somebody may be interested in taking
over maintainership of the rdoc_chm generator.

rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
options.
Joel VanderWerf (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 05:33
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
> Granger’s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
> RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
> lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
>
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/

It does look nice, except for source code display. The bg color is gray,
and so fg cyan/orange do not display well. Is this the default? Is it
changeable?
Mike G. (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 05:46
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
>> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
>> Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
>> RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
>> lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
>>
>> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
>
> It does look nice, except for source code display. The bg color is gray,
> and so fg cyan/orange do not display well. Is this the default? Is it
> changeable?

I appreciate the effort, it's just the colors do seem odd.  The
pea-green on top of the gray is difficult to read, and may even be
uglier than congressman Henry Waxman.  Please consider changing the
default colors.
Michael F. (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 06:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael G.'s
> Darkfish generator has become the default output format for RDoc! Michael
> put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite lovely. Check out the
> RDoc documentation for a sample:
>
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/

It has a nice validate link, but seems like it got errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Frdo...

^ manveru
Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 14:09
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael G.'s
> Darkfish generator has become the default output format for RDoc! Michael
> put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite lovely. Check out the
> RDoc documentation for a sample:
>
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/

The RDoc documentation is a pretty bad sample, since the majority of
the methods say 'not documented'. I suggest putting a small but
well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.

martin
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 17:47
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:24, Martin DeMello <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
>
> The RDoc documentation is a pretty bad sample, since the majority of
> the methods say 'not documented'. I suggest putting a small but
> well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.

Patches welcome
Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 18:31
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:24, Martin DeMello <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The RDoc documentation is a pretty bad sample, since the majority of
>> the methods say 'not documented'. I suggest putting a small but
>> well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.
>
> Patches welcome

Will sift rubyforge for candidates. Prawn looks pretty good in terms
of coverage, though perhaps something smaller would be better.

martin
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2009-01-29 20:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Martin DeMello
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> of coverage, though perhaps something smaller would be better.
Now that prawn has been split out into various extensions, prawn-core
isn't too bad.
http://prawn.majesticseacreature.com/docs/prawn-core/

I'll probably give the latest RDoc a try soon, and post here if I do.

-greg
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 05:32
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Gregory B. wrote:
>>>> well-documented project on the site purely to act as a demo.
> I'll probably give the latest RDoc a try soon, and post here if I do.
Oh, you can rebuild all your rdoc on your machine with:

sudo gem rdoc --all --no-ri
Clifford H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 13:30
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes.

Thanks, I think it's an improvement. Still has a way to go IMO,
however...

Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed? I have *empty* documentation
for classes where the class definition has #:nodoc:, instead of no
documentation... If this is a change, I think it's an error.

I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
the file index useful and almost always use the class index.

Clifford H..
Thomas S. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 15:21
Eric H. wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
> Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
> RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
> lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
>
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
>
> rdoc_chm and rdoc_html_templates have been split off from RDoc and
> released separately as unmaintained software. I don�t plan to make any
> future changes or updates to rdoc_html_templates (which are for the
> old HTML generator) ever, but somebody may be interested in taking
> over maintainership of the rdoc_chm generator.
>
> rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
> you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
> options.

(Sigh. the Google Group mirror is acting up again, so i will be replying
to this for the third time.)

My concern is for the loss of the sidebars. While I know frames are out
of fashion, having a sidebar was very convenient. Where as scrolling to
the bottom of a page is not.

Also, I think it would be nice if RDoc offered a few template options,
varying up the layout, suitable to variant preferences and/or project
needs, eg. small projects versus large ones.

Finally, what is the state of creating custom templates? Are we using
rhtml now? Is their a tutorial anywhere on the topic?

Thanks,
T.
James G. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 15:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:

> I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
> the file index useful and almost always use the class index.

I whole heartedly agree with that.

James Edward G. II
Thomas S. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 16:36
James G. wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
>> the file index useful and almost always use the class index.
>
> I whole heartedly agree with that.

How could anyone NOT agree? Since the file page often contains nothing.
And if it does contain anything it is usually redundant information.

I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.

T.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 16:39
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas S. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:

> I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
> be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
> verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
> to look at the source in full.

Oh, that's a very interesting thought.  +1
James G. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 16:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Gregory B. wrote:

> Oh, that's a very interesting thought.  +1
Yeah, I agree.  That would be nice.

James Edward G. II
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 17:54
It definitely looks better.

>> I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
>> the file index useful and almost always use the class index.
>
> I whole heartedly agree with that.
>
> James Edward G. II


+1
I assume that's referring to the leftmost side bars on pages like
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc.html
?

I'd also tend to prefer the class index above the file index on the main
page [http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/], or the two side by side, at the
bottom.

also the links to files like a.png point [in error] to a.png.rhtml

And when you click on those files, it shows the requires and last
modified file dates--it would be way nice to display the file itself, as
well [or is it supposed to?]


Also a few suggestions:

the link color could darken a bit to get better contrast--they sometimes
are a little hard contrast-wise against the background [ex:
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/ at the top, if you've never clicked on any of
the links.]

Thanks!
-=r
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 17:56
>> I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
>> be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
>> verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
>> to look at the source in full.
>
> Oh, that's a very interesting thought.  +1

+1 for me.

Also a nice thought would be to be able to "open the full file" from the
code snippet pop-downs--like a link back to see that method within
context.

Thanks for helping out.
-=r
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 22:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:37, James G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
>> the file index useful and almost always use the class index.
>
> I whole heartedly agree with that.

Try the quicksearch at the top of the class index
Radosław B. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 23:08
(Received via mailing list)
The are many linked files that ends up with 404, for example:
page: http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
section FILES: bullet_toggle_minus.png (I think that all .png files
does not work)


--
Pozdrawiam

Rados³aw Bu³at
http://radarek.jogger.pl - mój blog
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 23:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
>> This release of RDoc brings some big changes.
>
> Thanks, I think it's an improvement. Still has a way to go IMO,
> however...
>
> Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed? I have *empty* documentation
> for classes where the class definition has #:nodoc:, instead of no
> documentation... If this is a change, I think it's an error.

If you don't file a bug it won't get fixed.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 23:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 05:18 AM, Thomas S. wrote:
>> released separately as unmaintained software. I don�t plan to make
> My concern is for the loss of the sidebars. While I know frames are
> out
> of fashion, having a sidebar was very convenient. Where as scrolling
> to
> the bottom of a page is not.

I'm confused, the default RDoc template never had a sidebar.  If you
don't want to scroll so far down the class list, use the search at the
top.

>> rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
>> you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
>> options.
>
> Also, I think it would be nice if RDoc offered a few template options,
> varying up the layout, suitable to variant preferences and/or project
> needs, eg. small projects versus large ones.

Go for it!  RDoc will now automatically load other gems if they have
an rdoc/discover.rb.  Load your extra template or what-have-you from
there and it'll be used automatically by RDoc.

> Finally, what is the state of creating custom templates? Are we using
> rhtml now? Is their a tutorial anywhere on the topic?

I'm not sure how easy that is to add to Darkfish, but you're welcome
to try.  I decided to release RDoc in its current state because it was
good enough.  It's easy to add templates to the old HTML generator,
look at rdoc_html_templates for inspiration.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 23:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 07:51 AM, Roger P. wrote:

> also the links to files like a.png point [in error] to a.png.rhtml
>
> And when you click on those files, it shows the requires and last
> modified file dates--it would be way nice to display the file
> itself, as
> well [or is it supposed to?]

I'll fix this, either these files shouldn't show up (RDoc bug) or
a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my
oversight).  I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think it
is overzealous now.

There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-30 23:52
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 06:33 AM, Thomas S. wrote:

> I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it
> not
> be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
> verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a
> way
> to look at the source in full.

more -t and vim -t work very well for me...

Navigating via a web browser across various files quickly gets
tedious.  It's a breeze with a decent editor (one that has tags
support).
Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2009-01-31 00:03
(Received via mailing list)
2009/1/31 Rados³aw Bu³at <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
> The are many linked files that ends up with 404, for example:
> page: http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
> section FILES: bullet_toggle_minus.png (I think that all .png files
> does not work)

I've filed a bug for this

martin
Thomas S. (Guest)
on 2009-01-31 00:07
Roger P. wrote:
> It definitely looks better.
>
>>> I'd like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
>>> the file index useful and almost always use the class index.
>>
>> I whole heartedly agree with that.
>>
>> James Edward G. II
>
>
> +1
> I assume that's referring to the leftmost side bars on pages like
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc.html
> ?

Right. I see. It's on the class pages, but not on the main page.

I can understand that for people who don't bother to make their own
custom webpage for a project, but I almost always do. So for me the
normal rendering of README.txt makes more sense
(http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/README.txt.html). Not sure what the answer
is, maybe a new command line flag.

T.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-31 07:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 13:46, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my
> oversight).  I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think
> it is overzealous now.
>
> There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files

Actually, it's a Hoe issue. I'll have fixed documentation up when I'm
next at a shell
Clifford H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-31 09:00
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
>> Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
> If you don't file a bug it won't get fixed.

Done. I wasn't familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
hence my posting here. Thanks!

Clifford H..
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-31 23:06
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 23:00 PM, Clifford H. wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
>>> Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
>> If you don't file a bug it won't get fixed.
>
> Done. I wasn't familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
> hence my posting here. Thanks!

If you think it could possibly be a bug, best to file it!

That's my rule.
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-02-02 16:29
Eric H. wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
> Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
> RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
> lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
>
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/

I do like how the new sample looks.
I also do like a few things from the "old way" as well that I miss
slightly
: the method index, and the graphviz class tree.

[i.e. from http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html]

Was there a reason they were excluded?

Thanks for your work.
-=r
Stefano C. (Guest)
on 2009-02-03 17:37
(Received via mailing list)
Alle Thursday 29 January 2009, Eric H. ha scritto:
> old HTML generator) ever, but somebody may be interested in taking
> over maintainership of the rdoc_chm generator.
>
> rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
> you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
> options.

Very well done! I'm glad that at last we can have rdoc documentation
without
frames.

The only thing I don't like is the default style sheet, both because I
find
the green upon gray unpleasant and because the default font looks
horrible in
my browser. This leads to the following question:

does the darkfish generator use the custom style sheet passed by the
user
using the --style command line option? If so, either I'm doing something
wrong
or there's a bug. I tried the following command:

rdoc --style=my_rdoc.css *.rb

thinking that it would produce documentation using the my_rdoc.css style
sheet
instead of the default one. Instead, the documentation still used the
default
one. I also tried variants of the above command (for example using -s or
without the = or giving the full path of my_rdoc.css), but with the same
results. Am I missing something, is it a bug or by design the darkfish
generator doesn't take into account the --style option (in which case I
think
the documentation for the option should mention it)?

Thanks

Stefano
Michael G. (Guest)
on 2009-02-07 03:32
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Stefano C. wrote:
> instead of the default one. Instead, the documentation still used
> the default
> one.

That's my fault -- I hard-coded the path in the templates. I've added
a ticket to my tracker for this:

   http://deveiate.org/projects/Darkfish-Rdoc/ticket/7

and I'll look at fixing it this weekend (at least for the darkfish-
rdoc gem).
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-02-25 21:52
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 2, 2009, at 06:29, Roger P. wrote:
> I also do like a few things from the "old way" as well that I miss
> slightly
> : the method index, and the graphviz class tree.
>
> [i.e. from http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html]
>
> Was there a reason they were excluded?

I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.

Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-02-26 00:28
>
> I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
>
> Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
> improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
> like it but have never actually used it).

Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
result in 404's currently.
Thanks!
-=r
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-02-26 02:58
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 25, 2009, at 14:27, Roger P. wrote:
>> I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
>>
>> Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
>> improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
>> like it but have never actually used it).
>
> Thanks for doing that.
> As a note the links to the files, i.e. "README.txt"
> on
> http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417

Not for me:

$ curl -I http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:42 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:59:15 GMT
ETag: "cf2f-463b7ef7db2c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
matt neuburg (Guest)
on 2009-02-26 03:32
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> > http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
> Content-Length: 53039
> Vary: Accept-Encoding
> Content-Type: text/html

You didn't read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2009-02-26 23:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 25, 2009, at 17:30, matt neuburg wrote:
>>> on
>> Accept-Ranges: bytes
>> Content-Length: 53039
>> Vary: Accept-Encoding
>> Content-Type: text/html
>
> You didn't read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
> README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.

ah, oops! fixed, RDoc 2.4.1 forthcoming shortly.
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-02-28 00:27
Roger P. wrote:
>
>>> I've been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
>>> be more useful if the file page showed the entire file's contents
>>> verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
>>> to look at the source in full.
>>
>> Oh, that's a very interesting thought.  +1
>
> +1 for me.
>
> Also a nice thought would be to be able to "open the full file" from the
> code snippet pop-downs--like a link back to see that method within
> context.

Now that I think about it, including the source of C methods which have
no documentation would also be quite helpful--in that case it basically
is the only documentation you get [ex: shoes].
Thanks!
-=r
Roger P. (Guest)
on 2009-07-04 02:44
Eric H. wrote:
> This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
> Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
> RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
> lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:

I like darkfish.  Thought I'd pipe in a couple suggestions.

1) the method names include a prefix '#'
which makes single letter method names hard to read

2) the font is low contrast so harder to read.

Just talking out loud.
=r
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2009-07-04 02:56
(Received via mailing list)
Roger P. wrote:
> 1) the method names include a prefix '#'
> which makes single letter method names hard to read
>
> 2) the font is low contrast so harder to read.
>
> Just talking out loud.
> =r
>
I totally concur about the low contrast fonts. Accessibility gurus say
DON'T DO THIS.

People with aging eyes - like me - find these fonts significantly harder
to read. People with genuine vision impairments find them simply
impossible, often.

Iron rule: if you put something on a website which people are expected
to read, make it black font against a light background. Large fonts can
be reverse-color - IF distinctly large AND well contrasted with a dark
back ground. This is a basic design aspect of webpages (or CSS sheets)
which MUST be attended to if usability matters to anyone at all.

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< removed_email_address@domain.invalid >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.