PATCH 1 fixes an old defect in the doc comment parser.  I figure it'll
simplify the rST generator's job.

PATCH 2 might simplify it further.  It's RFC because I'm not sure it
does.  Peter, you tell me :)


Markus Armbruster (2):
  qapi: Reject section markup in definition documentation
  [RFC] qapi: Make section headings start a new doc comment block

 docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt           |  2 ++
 scripts/qapi/parser.py                 | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
 tests/qapi-schema/doc-bad-section.err  |  1 +
 tests/qapi-schema/doc-bad-section.json |  3 +--
 tests/qapi-schema/doc-bad-section.out  | 24 ------------------------
 tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.out         |  3 ++-
 6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.1

Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:

> PATCH 1 fixes an old defect in the doc comment parser.  I figure it'll
> simplify the rST generator's job.
>
> PATCH 2 might simplify it further.  It's RFC because I'm not sure it
> does.  Peter, you tell me :)

I dropped the ball on this one.  I think both patches make sense, but I
don't want to upset Peter's "Convert QAPI doc comments to generate rST
instead of texinfo" apple cart.  Peter, please tell me what you'd like
me to do:

* Post a pull request, so you can base your v6 on it.

* Nothing, so you can cherry-pick zero, one or both of my patches into
  your v6.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 15:41, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > PATCH 1 fixes an old defect in the doc comment parser.  I figure it'll
> > simplify the rST generator's job.
> >
> > PATCH 2 might simplify it further.  It's RFC because I'm not sure it
> > does.  Peter, you tell me :)
>
> I dropped the ball on this one.  I think both patches make sense, but I
> don't want to upset Peter's "Convert QAPI doc comments to generate rST
> instead of texinfo" apple cart.  Peter, please tell me what you'd like
> me to do:
>
> * Post a pull request, so you can base your v6 on it.

Looking back at my comments on the patches I think I was happy
with both and it probably isn't a huge rebase issue, so you
might as well send these in a pullreq. You might consider also
including the first 3 patches from my v5 series, which are just
fixing markup issues in the .json that get detected by the
rst conversion.

thanks
-- PMM

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 15:41, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > PATCH 1 fixes an old defect in the doc comment parser.  I figure it'll
>> > simplify the rST generator's job.
>> >
>> > PATCH 2 might simplify it further.  It's RFC because I'm not sure it
>> > does.  Peter, you tell me :)
>>
>> I dropped the ball on this one.  I think both patches make sense, but I
>> don't want to upset Peter's "Convert QAPI doc comments to generate rST
>> instead of texinfo" apple cart.  Peter, please tell me what you'd like
>> me to do:
>>
>> * Post a pull request, so you can base your v6 on it.
>
> Looking back at my comments on the patches I think I was happy
> with both and it probably isn't a huge rebase issue, so you
> might as well send these in a pullreq. You might consider also
> including the first 3 patches from my v5 series, which are just
> fixing markup issues in the .json that get detected by the
> rst conversion.

Good idea, will do.