Open esdmr opened 3 years ago
Oh, wow. I now realize this requires tremendous effort to integrate everything together. Plus the possible future effort to convert all fish scripts to JavaScript, the proposal is almost too much. I will try anyway, but this may get postponed indefinitely.
The current steps are as follows:
build
directory, and the sub-path exports in package.json
, construct a list of entry points available to the public. Note that a sub-path export could have no exported file assigned. That is a mistake to be reported.build
directory. Use tsconfig.json
to find the correct source file under the src
directory. Note that a built file could have no source file, or have missing declaration files. That is a mistake to be reported.typedoc-plugin-external-module-name
that these files should be aliased. Then we will call typedoc
to generate the documentation. Note that the aforementioned plugin has a compatibility issue with newer versions of typedoc
. Either the plugin should be rewritten to accommodate for the breaking change introduced, or forfeit the access to the recent versions of typedoc
for an indefinite length of time awaiting the update. ~Note that the last supported version of typedoc
does not fully support aggregate exports (reexports).~Edit: I say the first two items as if I have not already hacked together the rest of the codebase. lol
Edit: The only project requiring aggregate exports, esdmr/assert
, will be archived in the near future.
Suggestion
Replace
api-extractor
andapi-documenter
for a better alternative. Also perhaps remove Jekyll.Benefit
By switching to
TypeDoc
(and ditching Jekyll, yay) the documentation will look better and the search will be scoped to every version.This suggestion is unique
You may use the editor below to elaborate further.
The subpath exports are not regarded. Probably use
typedoc-plugin-external-module-name
to fix that.The documentation will no longer be written in Markdown. It is possible to revert this by using
typedoc-plugin-markdown
, however it does not look as good as the HTML. Additionally it would need to be converted using Jekyll (as it is currently done. Ugh, what was I thinking?).Unfortunately we may not be able to use
KaTeX
. This needs more investigation. But I would doubt anyone needs to write equations in documentation.