# Generating RDoc for App **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [July 21, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972 "2010-07-21T16:23:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/1 "2010-07-21T16:23:51Z")
I notice that when I run rake doc:app, that the named\_scope declarations I have in my models aren’t being included in the documentation. Is there a way to get named\_scopes in the rdocs? Thanks, Will ---
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/2 "2010-07-21T19:54:05Z")
Even IDE s have problem with named\_scopes. I don’t think RDoc can recognize it. Besides looking like a train wreck, that’s one of the reason I don’t like named\_scopes. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Will C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > – > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G. > “Ruby on Rails: Talk” group. > To post to this group, send email to removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > . > For more options, visit this group at > [http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en](http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en). – Cheers, Bala RoR Developer Now Available for Hire ---
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/3 "2010-07-21T20:21:23Z")
Bala P. wrote: > Even IDE s have problem with named\_scopes. Who cares about IDEs? 🙂 No IDE that I’m aware of really works well with Ruby’s dynamic features. IMHO, that’s a reason to not use an IDE for Ruby. > I don’t think RDoc can > recognize > it. I think you’re right, but it wouldn’t be hard to patch RDoc to recognize it if you want to. > Besides looking like a train wreck, that’s one of the reason I don’t > like named\_scopes. Those are bad reasons to dislike named\_scope, frankly. I don’t think the syntax is at all bad, and using a named\_scope makes most of the rest of your code _not_ look like a trainwreck. I’ll take a named\_scope over the old way of doing it any day. ## Best, Marnen Laibow-Koser [http://www.marnen.org](http://www.marnen.org) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/4 "2010-07-21T23:56:42Z")
For anyone interested, I emailed Eric H. who mentioned that it is possible: === You’ll need ## above your comment like: # This is the test model class Test \< ActiveRecord::Base ## # Sort all tests by name named\_scope :sort\_by\_name, :order =\> “name ASC” end See ‘Metaprogrammed Methods’ here: [http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/Parser/Ruby.html](http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/Parser/Ruby.html) === ---
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/5 "2010-07-21T20:43:16Z")
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I think you’re right, but it wouldn’t be hard to patch RDoc to recognize > it if you want to. Code, as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions, would be much more credible. Bill ---
**Author:** ![willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@willclarkdesigns](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/willclarkdesigns)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/generating-rdoc-for-app/191972/6 "2010-07-22T00:48:51Z")
Bill W. wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > I think you’re right, but it wouldn’t be hard to patch RDoc to recognize > > it if you want to. > > Code, as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions, would be much more > credible. The OP’s problem isn’t mine, so I’m not going to spend the time writing that code. I was just trying to remind him that it’s feasible if he wants to do it. No more, no less. In any case, it seems that a patch isn’t necessary, based on the feature mentioned in [Generating RDoc for App - Rails - Ruby-Forum](http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/213558#927241) . I’m happy to know about that feature, and I will probably use it a great deal. > Bill ## Best, Marnen Laibow-Koser [http://www.marnen.org](http://www.marnen.org) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid