Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 02:06:02PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 08:21:35AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > Hi, Markus, >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 01:10:01PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> >> For better or worse, we duplicate full documentation between >> >> >> MigrationParameter, MigrateSetParameters, and MigrationParameters. >> >> >> This >> >> >> would be the first instance where we reference instead. I'm not >> >> >> opposed >> >> >> to use references, but if we do, I want them used consistently. >> >> > >> >> > We discussed this over the other "switchover" parameter, but that >> >> > patchset >> >> > just stranded.. >> >> > >> >> > Perhaps I just provide a pre-requisite patch to remove all the comments >> >> > in >> >> > MigrateSetParameters and MigrationParameters, letting them all point to >> >> > MigrationParameter? >> >> >> >> Simplifies maintaining the doc commments. But how does it affect the >> >> documentation generated from it? Better, neutral, or worse? >> > >> > Probably somewhere neutral. There are definitely benefits, shorter >> > man/html page in total, and avoid accidentally different docs over the same >> > fields. E.g., we sometimes have different wordings for different objects: >> > >> > max-cpu-throttle >> > maximum cpu throttle percentage. Defaults to 99. (Since >> > 3.1) >> > >> > max-cpu-throttle: int (optional) >> > maximum cpu throttle percentage. The default value is 99. >> > (Since 3.1) >> > >> > This one is fine, but it's just very easy to leak in something that shows >> > differently. It's good to provide coherent documentation for the same >> > fields over all three objects. >> >> Yes, but we've been doing okay regardless. >> >> The drawback of replacing duplicates by references is that readers need >> to follow the references. >> >> Less onerous when the references can be clicked. >> >> If we de-duplicate, which copy do we keep, MigrationParameter, >> MigrateSetParameters, or MigrationParameter? Do we have an idea which >> of these users are likely to read first? > > I chose MigrationParameter for no explicit reason, because I can't find > good argument to differenciate them. Please let me know if you have any > suggestion. > >> >> > When looking at qemu-qmp-ref.7, it can be like this when we can invite the >> > reader to read the other section (assuming we only keep MigrationParameter >> > to keep the documentations): >> > >> > MigrationParameters (Object) >> > >> > The object structure to represent a list of migration parameters. >> > The optional members aren't actually optional. For detailed >> > explanation for each of the field, please refer to the documentation >> > of MigrationParameter. >> > >> > But the problem is we always will generate the Members entry, where now >> > it'll all filled up with "Not documented".. >> > >> > Members >> > announce-initial: int (optional) >> > Not documented >> > >> > announce-max: int (optional) >> > Not documented >> > >> > announce-rounds: int (optional) >> > Not documented >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > I think maybe it's better we just list the members without showing "Not >> > documented" every time for the other two objects. Not sure whether it's an >> > easy way to fix it, or is it a major issue. >> >> The automatic generation of "Not documented" documentation is a >> stop-gap. Leaving a member undocumented should be a hard error. It >> isn't only because we have 511 instances to fix. >> >> Perhaps a directive to ignore undocumented members could be useful. >> I.e. to suppress the automatic "Not documented" documented now, the >> error later. >> >> We could write things out in longhand instead, like >> >> # @announce-initial: Same as MigrationParameter member >> # @announce-initial. > > Yes I can definitely do this. > > Since I don't really know whether the "put a link" will work at all (at > least man page doesn't really have those, does it?), would this be the way > you suggest us forward?
I don't remember offhand how the QAPI doc generation machinery adds links. I can look it up for you after my vacation (two weeks, starting basically now). > Note that I am also always happy to simply duplicate the three paragraphs > just like before; that's not something I must do with solving the migration > problem so far, we can decouple the two problems essentially. But since > we're at it, if you think worthwhile we may have a chance get rid of > duplicated documents here (before code) I can try. > >> >> > For developers, dedup the comment should always be a win, afaict. >> >> No argument. > > Let me explain a bit: I meant the patch author who will reduce writting > duplicated documents, making sure everything match together. And reviewers > who will read the duplicated content, making sure that everything match > together again. The two efforts can be avoided. That's all I meant here > for when I was referring to as "developers" in this context.. Not everyone > as a common sense of developer. By "no argument", I mean we don't need to argue about this. I actually agree with you that de-duplication would be net positive for developers.
