[PATCH 50/57] docs/qapidoc: add visit_sections() method

John Snow posted 57 patches 4 weeks ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH 50/57] docs/qapidoc: add visit_sections() method
Posted by John Snow 4 weeks ago
Implement the actual main dispatch method that processes and handles the
list of doc sections for a given QAPI entity.

Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
---
 docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
index ed0269af27d..7308fa0a767 100644
--- a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
+++ b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
@@ -288,6 +288,31 @@ def preamble(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
 
         self.ensure_blank_line()
 
+    def visit_sections(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
+        sections = ent.doc.all_sections if ent.doc else []
+
+        # Add sections *in the order they are documented*:
+        for section in sections:
+            if section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.PLAIN:
+                self.visit_paragraph(section)
+            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.MEMBER:
+                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
+                self.visit_member(section)
+            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.FEATURE:
+                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
+                self.visit_feature(section)
+            elif section.kind in (QAPIDoc.Kind.SINCE, QAPIDoc.Kind.TODO):
+                # Since is handled in preamble, TODO is skipped intentionally.
+                pass
+            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.RETURNS:
+                self.visit_returns(section)
+            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.ERRORS:
+                self.visit_errors(section)
+            else:
+                assert False
+
+        self.ensure_blank_line()
+
     # Transmogrification core methods
 
     def visit_module(self, path: str) -> None:
-- 
2.48.1
Re: [PATCH 50/57] docs/qapidoc: add visit_sections() method
Posted by Markus Armbruster 3 weeks, 5 days ago
John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> Implement the actual main dispatch method that processes and handles the
> list of doc sections for a given QAPI entity.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> index ed0269af27d..7308fa0a767 100644
> --- a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> +++ b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> @@ -288,6 +288,31 @@ def preamble(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
>  
>          self.ensure_blank_line()
>  
> +    def visit_sections(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
> +        sections = ent.doc.all_sections if ent.doc else []
> +
> +        # Add sections *in the order they are documented*:

Is the order important, or just a matter of style?

> +        for section in sections:
> +            if section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.PLAIN:
> +                self.visit_paragraph(section)
> +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.MEMBER:
> +                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
> +                self.visit_member(section)
> +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.FEATURE:
> +                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
> +                self.visit_feature(section)
> +            elif section.kind in (QAPIDoc.Kind.SINCE, QAPIDoc.Kind.TODO):
> +                # Since is handled in preamble, TODO is skipped intentionally.
> +                pass
> +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.RETURNS:
> +                self.visit_returns(section)
> +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.ERRORS:
> +                self.visit_errors(section)
> +            else:
> +                assert False
> +
> +        self.ensure_blank_line()
> +
>      # Transmogrification core methods
>  
>      def visit_module(self, path: str) -> None:
Re: [PATCH 50/57] docs/qapidoc: add visit_sections() method
Posted by John Snow 3 weeks, 4 days ago
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 7:26 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Implement the actual main dispatch method that processes and handles the
> > list of doc sections for a given QAPI entity.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> > index ed0269af27d..7308fa0a767 100644
> > --- a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> > +++ b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
> > @@ -288,6 +288,31 @@ def preamble(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) ->
> None:
> >
> >          self.ensure_blank_line()
> >
> > +    def visit_sections(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
> > +        sections = ent.doc.all_sections if ent.doc else []
> > +
> > +        # Add sections *in the order they are documented*:
>
> Is the order important, or just a matter of style?
>

I meant to emphasize the fact that the transmogrifier works "dumbly" on a
sequence of sections and nothing else; so the output is strictly in source
order.

The order does wind up mattering a *little*; if you randomized the section
order you'd not get good field list grouping, and/or the grouping
mechanisms would re-order the documentation so that it wasn't source order
anymore.

Not that this would happen with our parser, but, you asked.


>
> > +        for section in sections:
> > +            if section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.PLAIN:
> > +                self.visit_paragraph(section)
> > +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.MEMBER:
> > +                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
> > +                self.visit_member(section)
> > +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.FEATURE:
> > +                assert isinstance(section, QAPIDoc.ArgSection)
> > +                self.visit_feature(section)
> > +            elif section.kind in (QAPIDoc.Kind.SINCE,
> QAPIDoc.Kind.TODO):
> > +                # Since is handled in preamble, TODO is skipped
> intentionally.
> > +                pass
> > +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.RETURNS:
> > +                self.visit_returns(section)
> > +            elif section.kind == QAPIDoc.Kind.ERRORS:
> > +                self.visit_errors(section)
> > +            else:
> > +                assert False
> > +
> > +        self.ensure_blank_line()
> > +
> >      # Transmogrification core methods
> >
> >      def visit_module(self, path: str) -> None:
>
>
Re: [PATCH 50/57] docs/qapidoc: add visit_sections() method
Posted by Markus Armbruster 3 weeks, 4 days ago
John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 7:26 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Implement the actual main dispatch method that processes and handles the
>> > list of doc sections for a given QAPI entity.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
>> > index ed0269af27d..7308fa0a767 100644
>> > --- a/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
>> > +++ b/docs/sphinx/qapidoc.py
>> > @@ -288,6 +288,31 @@ def preamble(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) ->
>> None:
>> >
>> >          self.ensure_blank_line()
>> >
>> > +    def visit_sections(self, ent: QAPISchemaDefinition) -> None:
>> > +        sections = ent.doc.all_sections if ent.doc else []
>> > +
>> > +        # Add sections *in the order they are documented*:
>>
>> Is the order important, or just a matter of style?
>>
>
> I meant to emphasize the fact that the transmogrifier works "dumbly" on a
> sequence of sections and nothing else; so the output is strictly in source
> order.

Would

              # Add sections in source order

be clearer?

> The order does wind up mattering a *little*; if you randomized the section
> order you'd not get good field list grouping, and/or the grouping
> mechanisms would re-order the documentation so that it wasn't source order
> anymore.
>
> Not that this would happen with our parser, but, you asked.

[...]