docs: review and update docstrings #41
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This exercise helped me to understand the API more deeply, hopefully it will help our users too. The biggest challenge was documenting `clj-http.lite.client/request`. Its previous docstring was way too vague for me to understand, as a user, what is available. Also challenging is the lack of definition of the supported API. I'm guessing our documented API is currently including lots of unnecessary internals. I reviewed all existing docstrings and updated where I thought I could be clearer and/or more consistent. I added no new docstrings. Also: added cljdoc.edn to explicitly list our docs. Closes clj-commons#36
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This exercise helped me to understand the API more deeply, hopefully it
will help our users too.
The biggest challenge was documenting
clj-http.lite.client/request.Its previous docstring was way too vague for me to understand, as a
user, what is available.
Also challenging is the lack of definition of the supported API.
I'm guessing our documented API is currently including lots of
unnecessary internals.
I reviewed all existing docstrings and updated where I thought I could
be clearer and/or more consistent. I added no new docstrings.
Also: added cljdoc.edn to explicitly list our docs.
Closes #36