Gendarme

Ya, I forgot that the xml comments are used both for documenting the API and for generating the user level docs. -- Jesse

That's ok - it's still better than the current situation ;-) Thanks, Sebastien

There's is xmldoc on the property only because it's a configurable property, i.e. the goal is not to document all properties, fields... inside the rule. Xmldoc inside rules sole goal remains end-user documentation. Yes, that's also something we should do. That's unlikely (unless someone volunteers for the task). They already

I'll see if I can add a section to the man page on the config file, but I'd prefer to do this after finishing up the rules. -- Jesse

Why is there a doc comment on the property? I can see documenting the framework code and maybe even the runners, but using doc comments on the rules themselves seems like it would add a lot of clutter to the docs and very little benefit. That looks like a good solution to me. Do you want me to rework my

r139187 -- Jesse

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Sebastien Pouliot < Looks great :)

Hello Gendarmes, Today the console runner supports configurable properties by using the rules.xml configuration file. This works well if: a) the configurable properties are documented (so the users can find them); and b) the feature itself is known (i.e. documented) by the end

ok, I got it almost ready last night. I just need to tweak how it looks on the wiki (i.e. the parsing is ok). I'll email an example of the above (attributes) in a new thread.

No, it's not. I maintain my own TODO (e.g. tomboy notes), I write TODO in code... some of them are high-level, some are pretty low level details, some are more ideas than real TODO, some are, likely, only wishful thinking ;-) Still a lot of it ... [More] should, slowly, migrate to this TODO since it will get a better visibility there, both for discussions and for anyone who [Less]