chore: docs lint plugin #6832
chore: docs lint plugin #6832
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6832 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.16% 94.17%
=======================================
Files 573 574 +1
Lines 42425 42453 +28
Branches 6739 6741 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 39951 39980 +29
+ Misses 2424 2423 -1
Partials 50 50 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| // This module is browser compatible. | ||
|
|
||
| import type { Uint8Array_ } from "./_types.ts"; | ||
| // deno-lint-ignore deno-std-docs/exported-symbol-documented |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, we could have this rule ignore re-exported types. However, that would assume that re-exported types have documentation. In this codebase that might be true but would be a far reaching assumption in other codebases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Re-exported items like this one are actually documented in _ prefixed files. Can we detect such docs by following the imports/exports?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, by using @deno/doc. Though, I haven't tried it yet, and I assume it might come with a bit of a performance cost. IMHO, how it is now is fine enough to get the ball rolling on this lint plugin, and I think we could revisit this later. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's fine to land if this is only informative, not requirement in CI.
we could have this rule ignore re-exported types
Could you implement this for now? I think this directive would be confusing to contributors
_tools/docs_lint_plugin.ts
Outdated
| // Copyright 2018-2025 the Deno authors. MIT license. | ||
|
|
||
| function isInternalFile(filename: string): boolean { | ||
| return filename.split("/").some((part) => part.startsWith("_")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will likely need to be refined in the future.
2 participants
First step towards #6649.