Skip to content

Doc comment ref page claims it will appear in an exported index.html #796

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
jeremydouglass opened this issue Jan 30, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #797
Closed

Doc comment ref page claims it will appear in an exported index.html #796

jeremydouglass opened this issue Jan 30, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #797

Comments

@jeremydouglass
Copy link
Contributor

Issue description

The "doc comment" reference page says:

Explanatory notes embedded within the code and written to the "index.html" file created when the code is exported.

However, PDE > File > Export Application does not appear to generate an index.html with JavaDoc contents.

URL(s) of affected page(s)

https://processing.org/reference/doccomment.html

Proposed fix

If this is a regression then we should fix JavaDoc generation in the main Processing code base. However if this was a dropped feature, we should either cut that reference text or change it to make clear that this does not work with the PDE export.

@jeremydouglass
Copy link
Contributor Author

Related discussion reporting this issue the forum:

https://discourse.processing.org/t/processing-javadoc-index-html/17158?u=jeremydouglass

@benfry
Copy link
Contributor

benfry commented Feb 1, 2020

Heh, that dates back to applet export. It should just be removed.

jeremydouglass added a commit to jeremydouglass/processing-docs that referenced this issue Feb 3, 2020
and adds line on how to do javadoc generation with third-party tools.

closes processing#796
@REAS REAS closed this as completed in #797 Feb 28, 2020
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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants