Test if all exported names has a docstring

[Roger-luo]

we have some facilities testing this here: https://github.com/QuEraComputing/Bloqade.jl/pull/470/files#diff-8b6a3d1fcb6507d7155106fb9cbecf22d4b3b1377f4128af77b2112c2277e0a7R4

might be a good test for everyone in general? what do people think?

[lucaferranti]

just a friendly thumbs up, as I think this would be very nice to have :)

[KeithWM]

Not quite sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but Documenter also allows to check for existing docstrings. See this PR: https://github.com/JuliaDocs/Documenter.jl/pull/1995 in particular.

[gdalle]

Not quite sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but Documenter also allows to check for existing docstrings.

Indeed but some packages don't have a Documenter page (for instance because the README is very good). Still, they might want to add quality checks with Aqua, and this is an important one in my opinion :)

[KeithWM]

Even then, it might be wise for Aqua to use or borrow the implementation of Documenter rather than reinventing the wheel. That said, there is a question whether Aqua attempts to be a one-stop quality assurance package, or play alongside other quality checks. What goes for Documenter's tests on documentation could also be said for JET's type stability checks. And maybe for other packages in this area too.

[hyrodium]

hasdoc will be added in Base.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51174

[stevengj]

This is now as simple as:

 @test isempty(Docs.undocumented_names(MyModule))

in Julia 1.11.

(Note that this checks all public names, not just exported, i.e. it includes identifiers declared with the new public keyword in addition to identifiers declared with export.)

[gdalle]

Just because it's a one liner perhaps doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of Aqua?

[j-fu]

I just wanted to open an issue on this and found this one. I think it should be part of Aqua, to make it a real one-stop solution for these quality tests.

[gdalle]

I move to reopen as well