Re: [Doxygen-users] difference between readthedocs generated and local
Brought to you by:
dimitri
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Doxygen-users] difference between readthedocs generated and local
|
From: Travis E. <tra...@gm...> - 2019-01-31 16:26:46
|
Ryan, I don't know a ton about how those parts of the codebase work so I stalled a bit hoping someone else would respond (there's some chance I'll mis-lead you here...). In any case, a good place to start is by seeing whether the behavior changed in 1.8.12/13/14. That should let you narrow your focus to just commits in a single version. If you aren't set up to build Doxygen from source (and/or aren't comfortable doing so), it's probably fine to open an issue report with the behavior you've seen, which version changed it, and a minimal set of files/config necessary to reproduce it. If you are comfortable building from source you can push this further and identify the specific commit. Hopefully the issue you're seeing was caused by an update to src/fortranscanner.i or src/fortrancode.i (there are probably only a few commits touching those per version). You can use git or github to identify which commits between two versions touched either of those files, and recompile/rebuild (depending on how long your docs take to build you may be able to speed this up a lot by making a separate config that just includes the minimum set of files you need to see the behavior) at each to see which introduces the break. If that doesn't work (or if there are more commits than I suspect touching those two files) you can use the more general git bisect command (along with a recompile and rebuild doc cycle) to narrow it down to the last-good commit. An issue report that identifies the commit/PR introducing the error should make it a quicker fix; if you're thinking of tackling the fix itself but need help figuring out where to start, it may help to fish around on the separate development list HTH, Travis On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:51 PM Ryan S. Elliott <rel...@um...> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for the reply. > > I tried 1.8.11 on my mac and I get a Segmentation fault! > > . > . > . > Reading > /Users/relliott/unison-sync/KIM/git/kim-api/fortran/include/kim_model_compute_arguments_module.f90... > Parsing file > /Users/relliott/unison-sync/KIM/git/kim-api/fortran/include/kim_model_compute_arguments_module.f90... > /bin/sh: line 1: 54543 Segmentation fault: 11 > /Users/relliott/doxygen/build/bin/doxygen > /Users/relliott/unison-sync/KIM/git/kim-api/build/docs/Doxyfile.docs > > > Anyway, then I set up a ubuntu VM and got it to work. Indeed, 1.8.11 on > ubuntu > it seems I get the same output as RTD. I've also confirmed that 1.8.14 on > ubuntu produces the same output (without the interfaces documented) that I > previously obtained on my mac. > > > So, it seems that this is a regression in behavior from 1.8.11 to 1.8.14? > How > should I go about figuring out when/where this happened and what to do > about > it? > > > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Travis Everett wrote: > > > The copy on RTD indicates it was generated by doxygen 1.8.11, while the > one > > at openkim indicates 1.8.14; a good first step would be installing 1.8.11 > > and seeing if your output matches what's on RTD. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:08 PM Ryan S. Elliott <rel...@um...> > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I'm working on the doxygen documentation for the kim-api project > >> (https://github.com/openkim/kim-api) > >> > >> When I locally (on my mac) generate the doxygen docs I see problems with > >> the > >> fortran docs. In particular, there are a fair number of functions that > >> are not > >> automatically documented by the parser. Further, no generic interfaces > are > >> documented. > >> > >> However, the exact same git commit, when used to generate the doxygen > docs > >> by > >> readthedocs documents all the functions and generates the generic > interface > >> docs. > >> > >> Here is a link to a readthedocs page showing the interfaces: > >> > https://kim-api.readthedocs.io/en/latest/namespacekim__model__module.html > >> > >> Here is a link to a similar page generated locally: > >> > https://openkim.org/kim-api/docs-beta.3/namespacekim__model__module.html > >> > >> In particular, also notice that in the locally generated docs the > >> "kim_model_is_routine_present" function is not documented! > >> > >> > >> I can't understand why these differences are occuring. Can anyone point > >> me in > >> the right direction? > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Ryan Elliott > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Doxygen-users mailing list > >> Dox...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users > >> > > > > -- > Ryan S. Elliott, Ph.D. and Professor > Aerospace Engineering & Mechanics, University of Minnesota > (612) 624-2376 (626-1558 fax) > https://z.umn.edu/relliott > download vCard <https://z.umn.edu/relliott_vcf> > ---------- > The distinction between past, present and future, is only an illusion, even > if a stubborn one. > > Albert Einstein > ---------- > |
