Add a nodoc configuration option to allow declaring entire files to not be documented
#2369
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
|
i will need to poke at this a bit to correct lingering path issues. The draft should work fine on Linux/Mac though. |
|
FANTASTIC! Thank you both! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2266 and I think, #2355.
This adds an option to dartdoc_options.yaml to dynamically tag code with
@nodocbased on whether it matches the given globs. See README.md and/or the test package for usage information.Note that this tags objects declared in the given files. Objects reexported or visible via inheritance only through files matching the glob will not be affected (though, they won't be documented as part of that library since that library won't be documented). Reexporting something declared in files matching the globs won't remove this virtual
@nodoc, differing this config option from the behavior ofexclude.It directly addresses @timsneath's issue in #2266 and I think may solve #2355 as well. If this isn't fine-grained enough for the use case in #2355 it might need a follow-up at some point.