Need free VS tool which generates code documentation for me!

Graeme_Grant

I tend to do my comments by hand. In VS, if you type /// it usually does the framework for you, including params and return types. Here is a handy reference for the recommendations and also XML tags: Documentation comments - document APIs using /// comments - C# | Microsoft Learn[^]. The link also includes Tools that accept XML documentation input[^] for generating documentation.

Graeme

"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee

Jo_vb net

VS refuses return info as well for me. And comment "Nons the trump cards." is pointless.

    /// /// Nons the trump cards.
    /// 
    /// The hand.
    /// The trump identifier.
    /// 
    public static string NonTrumpCards(HandCards hand, int TrumpID)
    {

        return hand.GetHandExTrumpString(TrumpID);

    }

Graeme_Grant

Hmmm... Try this extension: Extended XML Doc Comments Provider (VS2022+) - Visual Studio Marketplace[^]

Graeme

"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee

Peter Adam

>And comment "Nons the trump cards." is pointless. Not necessarily. Change the XML comment style to font color red, bold, and voila, you can scroll through your code with all information needed visible in the same place, same style. Side note: My Delphi 7 maintenance mode has three colors, bold red for comments, bold green for strings and bold/normal gray for the rest, on black background. It is perfect to find where to modify the code.

Davyd McColl

From reading the question and replies to which the OP has also replied, I understand that the OP wants a tool to generate the xmldoc example given. And the only question I have is what value this "documentation" has? It tells you nothing you couldn't already glean from the signature. It's "documentation" like this which drives the "no comments" movement - because this is just more reading material for the consumer - it does absolutely nothing to explain the _why_ or the methodology of the decorated function. It will rot because it's been noise ever since it was introduced, so at some point, it won't tell you something obvious - it will just be a source of "WAT?!" for the reader. I'm incredibly dismayed at people looking for tools to do this and write their unit tests for them. Are we even craftspeople any more? Do you consider yourself a creator, or a button-pusher?

------------------------------------------------ If you say that getting the money is the most important thing You will spend your life completely wasting your time You will be doing things you don't like doing In order to go on living That is, to go on doing things you don't like doing Which is stupid. - Alan Watts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM\_uPMY

trønderen

Davyd McColl wrote:

And the only question I have is what value this "documentation" has?

Maybe a formal requirement?

den2k88 wrote:

Extremely necessary if you want your SPICE or ASPICE certification.

I have been working under coding standard regimes requiring the arguments to be repeated ("prepeated"?) above the function declaration in a formal syntax, regardless of certifications. Mostly it has been so that if anyone asks for documentation of the source code, the company can proudly present a huge PDF document, split into main sections for each namespace, main chapters for the classes and sometimes each method has been given a separate page for describing its invocation interface and arguments. All is automatically generated from the formatted comments. It is useful for nothing except that it allows you to state, without lying: "Of course we maintain full documentation of the source code".

Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.

Davyd McColl

and people wonder why, when there is documentation, a lot of the time, it completely sucks ): fwiw, typing `///` in Rider (and, I'd assume, in VS, using ReSharper) automatically inserts an xmldoc skeleton, like so: ```C# /// /// /// /// /// /// public int Add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } ``` so one could do the following, which I do in my personal library projects because I'd like there to be intellisense documentation, and some day I'll find a tool that generates a nice html site out of that xmldoc (there are some, but I haven't found one that is free and any good - I may have to resort to writing my own): 1. enable xmldocumentation in the project 2. update the csproj, as early as possible, with: ```XML true true ``` 3. When creating a new method, or in response to build failure, do a triple-slash over the method and try to think of anything useful that could go in the summary. Sometimes it will be obvious, eg "Adds a and b and returns the result" - but I find that having to think about it, a lot of the time, there are useful summaries against my methods. I want full xmldoc for my users, but I agree there are times when the method seems quite obvious - so this is what I do there. At least following the above instead of just running a tool invokes the random chance that your documentation is actually useful. Certifications that require documentation without any stipulation of usefulness seem like a complete waste of time: - for the OP, certifiers and the users. - OP has to run a tool or write some code. - Certifiers have to check the output. Users have to use external code essentially blind - esp in an example like OPs where the actual intent is not at all obvious from the method name, at least not to a person who isn't "on the inside" with OP's terminology, and I'm 100% sure that a more useful doc string could be thought of there. Running a tool to produce this useless documentation runs counter to the original intent of the certification too. If I were a certifier and saw that was what was going on, I'd fail the project /2c

------------------------------------------------ If you say that getting the money is the most important thing You will spend your life completely wasting your time You will

Jo_vb net

Is installed now but I do not see a menu item or context menu item for starting it. What do I miss?

Libiom

Atomineer is not free, but it's not expensive, either. It has a very high degree of customizability along with being very good at determining code function from element names. Documentation can be applied at various scopes, from a single element to an entire file, and limited to public members or applied to all. I have been using it for years and have been very pleased with it.

cplas

In your VS project, type

/

three times and that comment will be generated, like so:

/// /// 
/// 
/// 
/// 
private int ParseLevel(string text) {

Jo_vb net

Sure, this was already posted on Tuesday. The Lounge[^]

cplas

Good to know 👍

Graeme_Grant

Never used it myself, just looked good.

Graeme

"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee

Jo_vb net

It is in project build properties and creates a xml file but only for already existing code comments. Walkthrough: Enabling and Using XML Comments[^]

jochance

The crusade against comments wields a rusty pin and calls it a sword.

Jo_vb net

Ok, my mistake. It seems to use IntelliSense and underlines methods names and when you move with the mouse over it, you get suggestions incl. return info!

    /// /// Optimizes selection.
    /// 
    /// The find card.
    /// The player ID.
    /// The declarer ID.
    /// The game status.
    /// The s hand cards.
    /// The trump ID.
    /// The optimize mode.
    /// The wnd.
    /// The lead suit ID.
    /// A bool

Jo_vb net

Thanks to all for replying! Found this for commenting methods: CodeDocumentor - Visual Studio Marketplace[^] It appears when you move the mouse over the method name (with intelli sense)

    /// /// Get hand trump cards.
    /// 
    /// The trump card ID.
    /// \]\]>
    public List GetHandTrumpCards(int TrumpCardID)