These changes make the the inspection xml-docs much more flexible.
hasresult attributes (all attributes actually) are now matched case-insensitively, and using StartsWith, so hasresults and hasResults would both match.
Introducing support for a module node (which itself supports name and type attributes, respectively for the module name and component type e.g. "Class Module" or "UserForm" - content isn't validated at this point).
Inspection examples that need multiple modules can now do this:
Otherwise, the CDATA code block can also remain directly under the <example> tag. Although theoretically supported, inspection xml-doc examples should either all use a <module> tag, or none of them should.
No need for a <module> tag if the module type is irrelevant or if there's only one module, however when the example is only applicable in a specific module type, consider including a <module> tag with a e.g. type="Class" attribute, even if there's only one single module involved.
Now, does anyone knows enough CSS to make the module name & type look pretty?
These changes make the the inspection xml-docs much more flexible.
hasresultattributes (all attributes actually) are now matched case-insensitively, and usingStartsWith, sohasresultsandhasResultswould both match.modulenode (which itself supportsnameandtypeattributes, respectively for the module name and component type e.g. "Class Module" or "UserForm" - content isn't validated at this point).Inspection examples that need multiple modules can now do this:
Otherwise, the
CDATAcode block can also remain directly under the<example>tag. Although theoretically supported, inspection xml-doc examples should either all use a<module>tag, or none of them should.No need for a
<module>tag if the module type is irrelevant or if there's only one module, however when the example is only applicable in a specific module type, consider including a<module>tag with a e.g.type="Class"attribute, even if there's only one single module involved.Now, does anyone knows enough CSS to make the module name & type look pretty?