Arguments to a function used to describe a {type} are mismarked as alternatives

What steps will reproduce the problem? What is the expected output? What do
you see instead?

- The comma separating arguments to a function used to describe the {type}
of a parameter is interpreted and printed as a “|”.  See deleteRows in the
test file for an example.  The substitution makes it look like the
arguments are options even though the first argument is required.

- Workaround:  Leave the comma out and just leave a space.  This is a bit
confusing to the reader, but not as confusing as a |.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

OS:  Windows XP with Firefox

The site shown in clientapi_docs.zip was produced by a snapshot of
jsdocs-toolkit v2 downloaded about a week ago.   The JsDocTookKitIssues.js
test file was written to the most recent beta build downloaded this
evening, but this build doesn’t work well with our clientapi_docs.

All docs were run using a command line that looked something like this,
where the .js files were in the labkey\Test directory:

java –jar jsrun.jar app\run.js labkey\Test –t=templates\jsdoc –a

Please provide any additional information below.

I’ve attached a test file called JsDocToolkitIssues.js to demo many of
these potential issues, plus clientapi_docs.zip to show you our finished
site for LabKey Server v8.1. 

Note 1:  Our APIs use the “Module Pattern” described here: 
http://www.klauskomenda.com/code/javascript-programming-patterns/#module

Note 2:  Our APIs are client-side, javascript wrappers around server-side
APIs described here:
https://www.labkey.org/wiki/home/Documentation/page.view?name=remoteAPIs .
 This means that some of the objects users need to know about to use the
client APIs are actually defined only in the server-side code.  We don’t
yet have the server-side code annotated & doc’ed, so we had to get a bit
creative to generate any sort of documentation for these objects.  We’ve
doc’ed these mysterious objects by creating namespaces for them. This is
the root of many of the issues I'm entering.  Better ideas for getting
these objects doc’ed are welcome – we’re not set on our current strategy
for future docs.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ekaynel...@gmail.com on 26 Mar 2008 at 9:36

Attachments:

mryozo16 / jsdoc-toolkit

Arguments to a function used to describe a {type} are mismarked as alternatives #108