[917] Missing Code Documentation Analysis Warnings

I have a class and have the XML output turned on in the project's build options. For some members, R# generates a missing documentation warning, for others I just get the compiler warnings. R# seems to not give the warning for overrides.

I can't find anything to let me turn the R# warnings on - am I missing something (apart from my code documentation ;)

Thanks

Sean

public abstract class MyClass : IEquatable]]>
{
// "Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member....", no R# analysis warning.
public override int GetHashCode() { }

// "Method XXX is not documented" with a R# analysis warning.
public virtual MyClass Clone() { }
}

4 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Hmm... I do not see reasons why overriden method should be documented. The
polymorphic root (i.e. abstract/virtual method) SHOULD be documented, but
overriden IMHO not

--
Eugene Pasynkov
Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"sean kearon" <no_reply@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:10088120.8981218284892861.JavaMail.jive@app4.labs.intellij.net...
>I have a class and have the XML output turned on in the project's build
>options. For some members, R# generates a missing documentation warning,
>for others I just get the compiler warnings. R# seems to not give the
>warning for overrides.
>

I can't find anything to let me turn the R# warnings on - am I missing
something (apart from my code documentation ;)

>

Thanks

>

Sean

>

public abstract class MyClass : IEquatable<MyClass>
{
// "Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member....", no
R# analysis warning.
public override int GetHashCode() { }

>

// "Method XXX is not documented" with a R# analysis warning.
public virtual MyClass Clone() { }
}



0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree, but sadly the compiler does not and it turns into a mass of warnings! As far as I know there is not a way to suppress the warnings for overrides where a root has documentation.

0
Comment actions Permalink

When reading code, it is much more convenient to have comments visible in the derived class than having to chas down the base class comments. Personally, I think the VS IDE should automatically find these parent comments and display them (and not just via Intellisense popups, but "permanently"). There is a further complication about allowing the override to change the base comments ( a proper override should probably only add commentary, not replace ). But as long as comments are not treated as first-class language elements, this will be a grey area.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Hi Brian, again I agree! I use GhostDoc to generate the comments. It takes the base comment automatically and adds it to the derived. Does the fact that the comments are not treates as first class elements mean that R# won't be able to detect missing comments?

Edited by: sean kearon on Aug 12, 2008 11:31 AM

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.