Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Improve Necroparser API Reference type data #2995

Open
endigo9740 opened this issue Nov 22, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Improve Necroparser API Reference type data #2995

endigo9740 opened this issue Nov 22, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
@endigo9740 @Hugos68
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request
Milestone
v3.0 (Next)

Comments

@endigo9740
Copy link
Contributor

@Hugos68 feel free to flush this out further.

We were aware of a few types that weren't quite parsed as expected for the API reference. From memory:

  • union types were overreaching
  • snippets are primitive enough to show verbatim
  • (likely more, we'll need an audit)
@endigo9740 endigo9740 added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request labels Nov 22, 2024
@endigo9740 endigo9740 added this to the v3.0 (Next) milestone Nov 22, 2024
@endigo9740 endigo9740 changed the title Improve API Reference type data Improve Necroparser API Reference type data Nov 22, 2024
@Hugos68
Copy link
Contributor

Hugos68 commented Nov 24, 2024

I might be crazy but the most simple fix would be to remove union as a typekind as a whole. Why is it there in the first place?

@endigo9740
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why is it there in the first place?

You implemented it, I can't answer that :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@endigo9740 endigo9740

@Hugos68 Hugos68

Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v3.0 (Next)
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@endigo9740 @Hugos68