Re: Issue 148 in protobuf: RFE: Support Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #2 on issue 148 by ken...@google.com: RFE: Support Documentation
option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Issue 232 has been merged into this issue.

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 148 by FlintOBr...@gmail.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Has anyone done any work on this? We need it. I don't know if we'll have
time to jump in and fork it ourselves.

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 148 by einavy...@gmail.com: RFE: Support Documentation

option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

is there any support of .proto javadoc?

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #5 on issue 148 by liuj...@google.com: RFE: Support Documentation

option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Issue 317 has been merged into this issue.

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #6 on issue 148 by richard....@gmail.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Without adding any documentation option in .proto files, it would still be
possible to generate javadoc indicating whether a field is optional or
required; this would be a useful enhancement.

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #7 on issue 148 by sergei.s...@gmail.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

I agree, even without a proper protodoc/javadoc solution, just copying the
associated bit of proto definition into the getter's/setter's javadoc would
be an improvement. It's already being done as a line comment, just needs to
be turned into a javadoc.

For example, currently we have in subinterfaces of MessageOrBuilder:

// required string name = 1;
boolean hasName();
String getName();

This can be converted to:

/**
* Checks if field 'name' has beed set.
*
* @see #getName()
*/
boolean hasName();

/**
* Generated property getter for field 'name'.<br/>
* Field definition:
* <pre>required string name = 1;</pre>
*
* @see #hasName()
*/
String getName();

...and in the associated Builder:

/**
* Generated property setter for field 'name'.<br/>
* Field definition:
* <pre>required string name = 1;</pre>
*
* @see #getName()
*/
public Builder setName(String value) {...}

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #8 on issue 148 by r.vaneet...@iterend.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Usefull functionnality to publish a proto within a team

--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #9 on issue 148 by jakob.ha...@exthex.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

I saw basic support for javadoc as suggested in #7 is already included
since proto 2.5.0

message Message {
optional string field = 1; // a string
}

is now converted to

/**
* <code>optional string field = 1;</code>
*
* <pre>
* a string
* </pre>
*/

as javadoc for at least getters and setters in the generated Message and
MessageBuilder classes

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #10 on issue 148 by r.vaneet...@iterend.com: RFE: Support

Documentation option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Thanks for the quick response ... I will apply it right now :)

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Comment #11 on issue 148 by okorz...@gmail.com: RFE: Support Documentation

option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

Just thought I would point out that protoc 2.5.0 adds message-level
comments to the message and the builder but not the shared interface.

For example:

// This is a foo.
message Foo {
}

Will generate:

/**
* Protobuf type {@code Foo}
*
* <pre>
* This is a foo.
* </pre>
*/

On both Foo and Foo.Builder but not on FooOrBuilder. I find this somewhat
unusual since the fields are documented on FooOrBuilder.

[prot...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: WontFix

Comment #12 on issue 148 by xiaof...@google.com: RFE: Support Documentation

option in proto files and javadoc in generated Java files

https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=148

(No comment was entered for this change.)