Skip to content

Please automate updating of the docs. #2

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
bcsgh opened this issue Dec 1, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

Please automate updating of the docs. #2

bcsgh opened this issue Dec 1, 2020 · 5 comments

Comments

@bcsgh
Copy link

bcsgh commented Dec 1, 2020

Right now the docs are more than 3 years behind:
1.8.3 (2017) https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp-docs/blob/gh-pages/doxygen/index.html#L141
1.9.4 (2020) https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp/blob/master/include/json/version.h#L12

It seems that reliance on manual updates to this repo is working. There are a number of turn-key CI solution that should be able to automate running the steps defined here: https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp-docs#build-and-deploy any time master gets updated.

If you want to get fancy, you could do that for more than just master (pushing update generated from $BRANCH in .../jsoncpp to $BRANCH in .../jsoncpp-docs, mirroring tags, etc.).

cdunn2001 added a commit to open-source-parsers/jsoncpp that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2021
We should automate this, but for now we can at least update:

    make -f dev.makefile update-version
    make -f dev.makefile dox
    # Then, go to jsoncpp-doc repo, add, and push.

* open-source-parsers/jsoncpp-docs#2
@cdunn2001
Copy link
Contributor

You're right. It should be automated. That's a good idea. Todo.

For now, the docs are updated to 1.9.4.

@bcsgh
Copy link
Author

bcsgh commented Jan 10, 2021

Thanks for updating the docs! :-) ... but:

What? You are saying you haven't done the thing I was suggesting, but plan to, and then close the issue? Isn't the point of an issue tracker to keep track of exactly this kind of thing until it's finished? [Note the request wasn't to update the docs once but rather to automate updating the docs.]

Or are you saying that this should be an issue on the other repo? (In which case I think the normal convention is to create an issue there and link it from here.)

@cdunn2001
Copy link
Contributor

The docs were way out of date. Closed issue for that, the user-facing part.

The API rarely changes, so we're not too worried about it. An automatic solution would be interesting, but where? Travis-CI? (I'd rather wait for Travis-CI to stabilize. They are moving travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.) Elsewhere? It requires pushing to another repo, and I've never set up a CI job that way before. Suggestions? Feel free to continue this thread here.

@bcsgh
Copy link
Author

bcsgh commented Feb 3, 2021

The docs were way out of date. Closed issue for that, the user-facing part.

I figured that. I also specifically chose to not file an issue for that bit figuring it would happen regardless. ;-)

The API rarely changes, so we're not too worried about it. An automatic solution would be interesting, but where? Travis-CI? (I'd rather wait for Travis-CI to stabilize. They are moving travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.) Elsewhere?

I've never used Travis so I have no opinion on what automation tool to use.

It requires pushing to another repo, and I've never set up a CI job that way before. Suggestions? Feel free to continue this thread here.

One option would be to have the jsoncpp repo be a git sub module of the jsoncpp-docs repo. Then the docs CI could sync that down, run the docs build and commit whatever changes (if any) come out of that. Or the CI could just git clone into a scratch directory?

The down side would be that I suspect triggering the CI based off a different repo being updated would be more complex. But as you pointed out, the API doesn't change much so doing that weekly(?) would likely be rather adequate.

@cdunn2001
Copy link
Contributor

A submodule? That's not a bad idea.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants