Can't create an arbitrary namespace about jsduck HOT 11 CLOSED

The Gnt.model.Task.SubTask is by definition in Gnt.model.Task namespace. There's no need for a @namespace tag. Actually in the code you gave there's even no need for @Class and @extends - JSDuck can detect these things automatically for you.

If you're wondering why the class tree looks like this:

Gnt
  model
    Task
    Task.SubTask

And not like this:

Gnt
  model
    Task
      SubTask

...then this is on purpose. That's how it was implemented in ext-doc and I wanted JSDuck to create exactly the same tree structure.

This might be a subject to change in the future, but I'm not going to bother changing it for now. Of course, you're welcome to submit a patch.

from jsduck.

@namespace tag in ext-doc was converting the tree structure to:

Gnt
    model
        Task
            SubTask

from jsduck.

That's interesting to know. I always wondered what's the use of the @namespace tag - apparently a purely presentational.

My take on this is that I either make this tree behave in one or the other way, but I'm not going to add another @tag for that.

from jsduck.

The idea of the @namespace of tag, is that it allows to have a namespaces, started with the upper-cased letter. Its not only presentational. If, by occasion, I will have several classes in such namespace, the docs for the higher level namespace will contain unnecessary information.

from jsduck.

Any chance you can consider to implement the @namespace tag? I'm working on the project where all namespaces starts with the upper-case letter - and they end up as the raw list in the documentation.

from jsduck.

I'm still reluctant to support @namespace tag, but I could enhance the algorithm that renders the class tree.

For example I could implement it so that when there is no class Foo.Bar, it would be considered a namespace and the tree would be rendered as:

Foo
    Bar
        Baz

But in case there is class Foo.Bar, the tree would look like:

Foo
    Bar
    Bar.Baz

Would that solve you problem?

from jsduck.

Nope, in the project I'm working on, there are all 3 - Foo, Foo.Bar and Foo.Bar.Baz classes. There also other classes in Foo namespace, most of them are namespaces in the same time (have inner classes like Foo.Quix.Blorg etc)..

And this is what I have as result: http://bryntum.com/temp/demo1.png

from jsduck.

Hmmm... OK.

Now I'm thinking of making all the namespaces expandable, ignoring whether they are a class or not. Ext JS 4 has only few classes like this, so the change would be barely noticable. Ext JS 3 has some more, but it's not really very important any more to have the tree look exactly the same.

This would also get rid of the special case of how the root "Ext" class is handled.

from jsduck.

Sounds promising!

from jsduck.

Implemented in aad238b

from jsduck.

Oh, great! Thanks a lot

from jsduck.