plsqldoc enhancements and requests

[agent86]

Can we please get plsqldoc to cross link without having to have database and owner checked under "Object name prefix" under configuration? Currently BOTH need to be checked in order to have links in the documenation. It would be nice to have any combination work.

Also is there a way to supress certain functions in the pacakge header from being included in the generated docs? There are times when certain functions need to be public to be called from other packages but I dont want them to be visible in the docs as they would never be called directly by the client.

thanks

/aaron

 

[Marco Kalter]

We'll check out the cross-reference issue.

I have also added your suppress option to the list of enhancement requests.

 

[bcoulam]

Not sure if I should start a new topic or use this one.

I'd like to see an enhancement in plsqldoc such that a built-in or custom tag can have a default HTML tag associated with it that would remain in effect until the end of the comment block or the next plsqldoc tag. For example, in many of my function/procedure comment blocks, I have the built-in %usage tag that is followed by an anonymous PL/SQL block demonstrating how the routine is to be called and used. To make that appear nice in the generated docs, I have to wrap that example with the HTML element. It would be great to be able to associate the HTML CODE tag with the plsqldoc %usage tag.

Another example is change log blocks usually found in the first comment block of a package, and in some shops, in every comment block for every routine. This change log looks pretty bad with current plsqldoc behavior, and so has to be wrapped with the HTML tag to look good. Again, it would be great to create a custom %log tag, and associate the PRE element with it.

Or can someone else think of a better way?

Yes, I'm lazy. And personally I don't like having to pepper my comments with HTML to make it play nicely with the generator. I'd rather that plsqldoc recognized line terminators and blank lines within comments (so I can avoid the use of
and

, as well as add this requested feature.

Do-able? Thoughts? Or has anyone come up with a workaround that doesn't require more of Marco's precious time?

 

[Marco Kalter]

I think it should be doable. I have added this to the list of enhancement requests.