Documentation Team/API Documentation
APIDOX are generated by the Doxygen documentation tool. This tool reads the source code for your application (or library) and produces nicely formatted documentation from it. There is a good reference manual available -- but let's hope to make it unnecessary to read, for basic use anyway.
You don't even need to have Doxygen installed to work on apidox for your application. Every few hours, api.sugarlabs.org compiles apidox for all of the Sugar modules we know about. Logfiles are kept and you can see your apidox on the site, or read the error messages and fix those. ...it might not be the fastest way to write and fix apidox, but it gets the job done, and if you spend just an hour at the end of the day writing some apidox, it's sufficiently useful.
Basic apidox are fun and simple: you write comments in your code explaining what things are supposed to be for. These comments are nearly indistinguishable from stuff you would be writing in the headers of your code anyway, so that's not hard to do.
APIDOX are written in python docstring comments. These comments are surrounded by """ (quote, quote, quote) -- that's what makes them special. The rest of the content of the comment is just plain text describing a part of your program. The plain text is interpreted by the Doxygen processor, so that you can write accurate descriptions of parameters, return types, and do some basic text markup. But documentation can be very straighforward: just write down what a method does, surrounded by """ and """, like this:
""" This method increases the IQ of end users. Therefore, it should be called whenever possible (i.e. instead of having idle time, you might think of calling this method.) You might even insert it into your own event loop to ensure it is called as often as possible. If these calls decrease the number of new features, it's still no problem to call it. """ def increaseIQ (IQ):
Note: This process is slightly different from the instruction on the Doxygen site. Standard Doxygen comments are surrounded by /** and */. In order to maintain compatibility with standard python documentation, api.sugarlabs.org runs a preprocessor that converts docstrings into doxygen comments.
For proper apidox, you need to document every "thing" in your program. "Things" here are: sugar modules, python packages, python modules, classes, functions, and variables. Complete apidox looks something like this:
# \file example.py # \brief An example Python program. # Demo class class Demo: """ \brief A demo class, it's really just for demonstration. The detailed description of the class would appear right here. However, as this class is utterly useless when talking about its functionality it actually has no detailed description which is sort of a pity, since a couple of lines of documentation would make it look like a real documentation. But as this is just an example of how the doxygen output might look like a one-liner has to be enough. Insert your documentation here as appropriate. You get the idea now, don't you? If not, I can't help it but I certainly won't type in a lot of nonsense just to make it look \em real. No, definitely not. """ def __init__(self): """The constructor.""" def foo(self, bar): """ The infamous foo method. There's no detailed description necessary for the \em foo() function as everybody know what it does. \param bar The \a bar argument is compulsory, never leave it out. \return The \a bar input after processing by the \em foo() function. """ pass ## protected: def spam(self, amount): """ Return an amount of spam. \param amount (\c int) The amount of spam. \return An amount of spam. """ return amount*"spam" # Another demo class class AnotherDemo(Demo): """\brief This class is derived from the demo class.""" def __init__(self): pass
You can see here that each nesting level of "things" is documented with a comment -- the module, the class and the method. Things that are private do not need apidox.
It is important to document each level of nesting, because if you leave one level out, Doxygen will ignore the documentation in inner nesting levels, and you will be left wondering where it has gone. For instance, if we leave out the class documentation, then the method documentation will vanish as well. This is one of the common pitfalls to writing apidox.
If you just do this -- write an explanation for every part of your program -- then you're already a long way on the road to having complete apidox. Writing all those explanations makes your program more accessible to other developers -- and often shows you where the design or choice of names is sub-optimal. So it's a win for you both ways.
You can consult the list of supported tags for examples of more fancy apidox -- explaining parameters, for instance, and annotating the apidox with credits and examples. It's also worthwhile to take a look at the section on enabling apidox, but it's also fine to divide the work: you write the apidox themselves, and ask me (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org) to enable apidox generation for your module. And I will.