GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 703422
Please add atspi to the gjs API
Last modified: 2014-03-05 15:35:26 UTC
Bug: 647482 explains why atspi methods had to be adapted for javascript in gnome-shell. Note also; comment 3 (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=apinheiro%40igalia.com) which explains that using different names for the atspi methods in gjs means that the C API might not actually be appropriate documentation for gjs developers to reference. https://developer.gnome.org/libatspi/2.9 Right now, it is not possible to find the names of the gjs methods from the atspi library without looking directly in atspi's. gir file so it could be useful if atspi documentation were added to the gjs API to be published. For quick reference; the documentation I am talking about here browse http://gnome.thismagpie.com/atspi for now. It was created very simply with doctools and this wiki:https://wiki.gnome.org/GObjectIntrospection/Doctools. Unfortunately I do not have library-web on my jhbuild right now, so cannot add a patch but I can do this if needed, later on. Thank you.
(In reply to comment #0) > Bug: 647482 If you want this to became a link you need to avoid the ':' > explains why atspi methods had to be adapted for javascript in > gnome-shell. Note also; comment 3 > (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=apinheiro%40igalia.com) Comment 3 of which bug? Why do you list all my bugs? If you want to add a link to a specific comment of a different bug, the pattern is "bug XXX comment YYY". > which explains that using different names for the atspi methods in gjs means > that the C API might not actually be appropriate documentation for gjs > developers to reference. > https://developer.gnome.org/libatspi/2.9 > > Right now, it is not possible to find the names of the gjs methods from the > atspi library without looking directly in atspi's. gir file so it could be > useful if atspi documentation were added to the gjs API to be published. > > For quick reference; the documentation I am talking about here browse > http://gnome.thismagpie.com/atspi for now. > > It was created very simply with doctools and this > wiki:https://wiki.gnome.org/GObjectIntrospection/Doctools. > > Unfortunately I do not have library-web on my jhbuild right now, so cannot add > a patch but I can do this if needed, later on. The combination of the bug summary and the bug description is confusing. Sometimes seems to suggest that you want to add a new module on gjs in order to take care of atspi, and in others, seems to suggest that you just want to add the atspi API reference to gjs API reference. In the same way, selecting website:developer.gnome.org as product:component seems to suggest that the only problem here is that the already existing documentation is not published. If solving this bug need any change on gjs, then then proper product is gjs. So, please, could you write a explanatory comment: * With the proper links * Elaborating what is the real need of this bug * Setting the proper product:component if needed
After a IRC chat: * The purpose of this bug is asking to add the documentation of the API of the javascript bindings of at-spi2. * gjs doesn't have at all that kind of documentation * Documentation for each module is a responsibility of each module * So I will move this bug to at-spi2, and then the maintainer can conclude if it is interesting or not. Finally, it is worth to say that it would be interesting to have docs for everything introspected, not just at-spi2 (clutter, gtk, etc), so this seems a broader problem that probably the people from gobject introspection and documentation are already addressing or planning to address.
[Mass-resetting default assignee, see bug 705890. Please reclaim this bug report by setting the assignee to yourself if you still plan to work on this. Thanks!]
(In reply to comment #2) > After a IRC chat: > > * The purpose of this bug is asking to add the documentation of the API of the > javascript bindings of at-spi2. > * gjs doesn't have at all that kind of documentation > * Documentation for each module is a responsibility of each module > * So I will move this bug to at-spi2, and then the maintainer can conclude if > it is interesting or not. > > Finally, it is worth to say that it would be interesting to have docs for > everything introspected, not just at-spi2 (clutter, gtk, etc), so this seems a > broader problem that probably the people from gobject introspection and > documentation are already addressing or planning to address. Should it not be in gnome shell?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > After a IRC chat: > > > > * The purpose of this bug is asking to add the documentation of the API of the > > javascript bindings of at-spi2. > > * gjs doesn't have at all that kind of documentation > > * Documentation for each module is a responsibility of each module > > * So I will move this bug to at-spi2, and then the maintainer can conclude if > > it is interesting or not. > > > > Finally, it is worth to say that it would be interesting to have docs for > > everything introspected, not just at-spi2 (clutter, gtk, etc), so this seems a > > broader problem that probably the people from gobject introspection and > > documentation are already addressing or planning to address. > > Should it not be in gnome shell? No. As I already said, this is a broader issue. It would be also good to have docs for everything introspected. In the same way that gnome-shell doesn't include javascript documentation for Gtk+ or Clutter, it isn't the place for at-spi2 documentation.
(In reply to comment #5) > As I already said, this is a broader issue. It would be also good to have docs > for everything introspected. In the same way that gnome-shell doesn't include > javascript documentation for Gtk+ or Clutter, it isn't the place for at-spi2 > documentation. And that broader issue is being managed by Giovanni Campagna, and he is already asking for uploading GJS documentation for any GNOME module at GNOME website. And he already confirmed that libatspi would be a candidate for that upload. So closing this bug as a duplicate (I know that this is older, but Giovanni's bug has more details and includes all the modules.) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 725665 ***