Groovydoc is widely used but could certainly do with some TLC. All of Groovy's API documentation for Groovy classes is produced using it.
Wrt to "non-documented" methods should be hidden. Currently it follows Javadocs behavior where you can turn on/off methods by visibility, e.g. you can make methods private or protected and then not display those. That way Groovydoc documentation will match what IDEs will autocomplete for you. I'd create a distinct feature request email/issue if you want some other behavior. Wrt to the package thing. I have only seen that when the declared package didn't match the actual folder hierarchy of the source files. There could be some kind of other bug, so best to raise an issue with a replicator and we can try to sort out what is going on. Paul. On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 6:03 AM OCsite <o...@ocs.cz> wrote: > > Hi there, > > I've tried to use groovydoc, and at the first look, it does not seem to work > quite well. Does anyone really use the thing? > > For one, it seems to ignore packages completely — although each of my classes > contain the “package” line all right, the generated documentation shows > “Default Package” only; the particular classes are also presented without a > package. > > Even worse is that the generated documentation contains unneeded information > for all the small supporting methods which have no documentation comments and > thus should not be shown at all. The result is terribly cluttered and good > for nothing; the non-documented methods should be hidden. > > I must be missing something of importance. I've checked the groovydoc > options, and it seems there is no package-related option at all (but for > -exclude, which is not what I need here), and I can't find a switch to skip > undocumented methods either :( > > What do I overlook? > > Thanks, > OC
