- Change Summary:
-
Added more to the overview, and about half of the tutorial.
- Branch:
-
masterapi
Introduce rbtools documentation
Review Request #3296 — Created Aug. 20, 2012 and submitted
Introduce rbtools documentation Create the configuration for the rbtools documentation and introduce the initial documentation for the rbtools api client. This documentation includes a small tutorial, a general overview, and resource specific functionality.
Built the documentation using 'make html' and visually inspected. Quickly proofread as I went.
Description | From | Last Updated |
---|---|---|
Might as well have this fit PEP-8. Space after the : |
david | |
I think it would be easier to read and probably more useful if you showed this loading the diff from … |
david | |
? |
david | |
Same here re: loading from a file. |
david | |
Maybe show what happens if you try to publish and there's no user or group assigned? |
david | |
Maybe just link "hyperlinks" to this? |
chipx86 | |
Technically, all the keys in this would be quoted, since they do that in JSON. |
chipx86 | |
Got an extra space in here. |
chipx86 | |
"keyword" |
chipx86 | |
field's |
chipx86 | |
resource's ? |
chipx86 | |
administrator's |
chipx86 | |
Capitalize "Specify" |
chipx86 | |
Resource-Specific |
chipx86 | |
I'd maybe remove "Specific" on these sub-headers. |
chipx86 | |
"retrieve" |
chipx86 | |
Comma after "examples" |
chipx86 | |
"API", for consistency. |
chipx86 | |
Comma after ``uri-template``. |
chipx86 | |
Comma after ``uri-template`` |
chipx86 | |
This looks left over from something. |
chipx86 | |
"Review Board" |
chipx86 | |
API? |
chipx86 | |
We have the room, so I'd suggest we have the first parameter on the "RBClient(" line. |
chipx86 | |
"documentation" |
chipx86 | |
I don't think that's true anymore. It should be possible to create a review request with no repository, for file … |
chipx86 | |
"ID" |
chipx86 | |
Two blank lines. |
chipx86 | |
Refs are going to use the page titles, which may not fit well in the sentence. I'd make sure to … |
chipx86 | |
resource's |
chipx86 | |
Comma after "attachment" |
chipx86 | |
4 space indentation, relative to the code's indentation block. |
chipx86 | |
Two blank lines. |
chipx86 | |
Indentation is wonky. |
chipx86 | |
No comma after "group" |
chipx86 | |
Comma after "requirement" |
chipx86 | |
Odd way to format a paragraph ;) |
chipx86 | |
Comma after "review request' |
chipx86 | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (82 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 11 E401 multiple imports on one line |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (83 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (81 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
I feel we should just keep this as RBTools. That way it's very clear, when they see the URLs, and … |
chipx86 | |
resource's |
chipx86 | |
Wrong number of ===s. |
chipx86 | |
Missing period. |
chipx86 | |
Here too. And others. |
chipx86 | |
Same question about the cookies. |
chipx86 | |
Missing a trailing period. |
chipx86 | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (82 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 11 E401 multiple imports on one line |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (83 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Col: 80 E501 line too long (81 > 79 characters) |
reviewbot | |
Same goes for here (The RBTools bit). |
chipx86 | |
Are we instantiating the API? We're using API a lot in this paragraph - maybe we should say, "Here is … |
mike_conley | |
Maybe we could show an example here? |
mike_conley | |
For clarity's sake, maybe we should call this review_request, to disambiguate between review requests and WebAPI HTTP requests. |
mike_conley | |
"for use" -> "to use" |
mike_conley |
- Change Summary:
-
Update based on David's review and flesh out the api documentation some more.
- Summary:
-
[WIP] RBTools DocumentationIntroduce rbtools documentation
- Description:
-
~ This is a sphinx configuration for RBTools documentation, and the start of documentation for the new API client.
~ Introduce rbtools documentation
+ + Create the configuration for the rbtools documentation and introduce
+ the initial documentation for the rbtools api client. This + documentation includes a small tutorial, a general overview, and + resource specific functionality. - Testing Done:
-
+ Built the documentation using 'make html' and visually inspected. Quickly proofread as I went.
- Branch:
-
apimaster
-
This is a review from Review Bot. Tool: PEP8 Style Checker Processed Files: docs/conf.py Ignored Files: docs/Makefile docs/index.txt .gitignore docs/api/overview.txt docs/contents.txt docs/api/tutorial.txt docs/api/resource-specific.txt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The pages themselves look pretty good, but I'm worried that just calling it "rbtools documentation" will get a lot of hits from people looking for docs on how to use rbtools. Can we call these "code base documentation" like we do for reviewboard?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think that's true anymore. It should be possible to create a review request with no repository, for file attachments.
-
-
-
Refs are going to use the page titles, which may not fit well in the sentence. I'd make sure to check all these (a simple 'make html' should generate readable output), and maybe change some to be like: :ref:`resource-specific functionality <python-api-resource-specific`.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I feel we should just keep this as RBTools. That way it's very clear, when they see the URLs, and it should help with any Googling.
- Change Summary:
-
Updated based on Christian's review and fixed a couple small issues I noticed myself.
-
This is a review from Review Bot. Tool: PEP8 Style Checker Processed Files: docs/conf.py Ignored Files: docs/Makefile docs/index.txt .gitignore docs/api/overview.txt docs/contents.txt docs/api/tutorial.txt docs/api/resource-specific.txt
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Change Summary:
-
Updated based on Christian's review and fixed the pep8 issues with the auto generated configuration.
-
This is a review from Review Bot. Tool: PEP8 Style Checker Processed Files: docs/conf.py Ignored Files: docs/Makefile docs/index.txt .gitignore docs/api/overview.txt docs/contents.txt docs/api/tutorial.txt docs/api/resource-specific.txt
-
This is really excellent! Just a few suggestions.
-
Are we instantiating the API? We're using API a lot in this paragraph - maybe we should say, "Here is an example of how to instantiate the client, and retrieve the root resource".
-
-
For clarity's sake, maybe we should call this review_request, to disambiguate between review requests and WebAPI HTTP requests.
-