mirror of
https://github.com/google/styleguide.git
synced 2024-03-22 13:11:43 +08:00
116 lines
5.2 KiB
Markdown
116 lines
5.2 KiB
Markdown
|
# Documentation Best Practices
|
||
|
|
||
|
"Say what you mean, simply and directly." - [Brian Kernighan]
|
||
|
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Programming_Style)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Contents:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. [Minimum viable documentation](#minimum-viable-documentation)
|
||
|
1. [Update docs with code](#update-docs-with-code)
|
||
|
1. [Delete dead documentation](#delete-dead-documentation)
|
||
|
1. [Documentation is the story of your code](#documentation-is-the-story-of-your-code)
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Minimum viable documentation
|
||
|
|
||
|
A small set of fresh and accurate docs are better than a sprawling, loose
|
||
|
assembly of "documentation" in various states of disrepair.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Write short and useful documents. Cut out everything unnecessary, while also
|
||
|
making a habit of continually massaging and improving every doc to suit your
|
||
|
changing needs. **Docs work best when they are alive but frequently trimmed,
|
||
|
like a bonsai tree**.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This guide encourages engineers to take ownership of their docs and keep
|
||
|
them up to date with the same zeal we keep our tests in good order. Strive for
|
||
|
this.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Identify what you really need: release docs, API docs, testing guidelines.
|
||
|
* Delete cruft frequently and in small batches.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Update docs with code
|
||
|
|
||
|
**Change your documentation in the same CL as the code change**. This keeps your
|
||
|
docs fresh, and is also a good place to explain to your reviewer what you're
|
||
|
doing.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A good reviewer can at least insist that docstrings, header files, README.md
|
||
|
files, and any other docs get updated alongside the CL.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Delete dead documentation
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dead docs are bad. They misinform, they slow down, they incite despair in
|
||
|
engineers and laziness in team leads. They set a precedent for leaving behind
|
||
|
messes in a code base. If your home is clean, most guests will be clean without
|
||
|
being asked.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Just like any big cleaning project, **it's easy to be overwhelmed**. If your
|
||
|
docs are in bad shape:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* Take it slow, doc health is a gradual accumulation.
|
||
|
* First delete what you're certain is wrong, ignore what's unclear.
|
||
|
* Get your whole team involved. Devote time to quickly scan every doc and make
|
||
|
a simple decision: Keep or delete?
|
||
|
* Default to delete or leave behind if migrating. Stragglers can always be
|
||
|
recovered.
|
||
|
* Iterate.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Prefer the good over the perfect
|
||
|
|
||
|
Your documentation should be as good as possible within a reasonable time frame.
|
||
|
The standards for an documentation review are different from the
|
||
|
standards for code reviews. Reviewers can and should ask for improvements, but
|
||
|
in general, the author should always be able to invoke the "Good Over Perfect
|
||
|
Rule". It's preferable to allow authors to quickly submit changes that improve
|
||
|
the document, instead of forcing rounds of review until it's "perfect". Docs are
|
||
|
never perfect, and tend to gradually improve as the team learns what they really
|
||
|
need to write down.
|
||
|
|
||
|
## Documentation is the story of your code
|
||
|
|
||
|
Writing excellent code doesn't end when your code compiles or even if your
|
||
|
test coverage reaches 100%. It's easy to write something a computer understands,
|
||
|
it's much harder to write something both a human and a computer understand. Your
|
||
|
mission as a Code Health-conscious engineer is to **write for humans first,
|
||
|
computers second.** Documentation is an important part of this skill.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There's a spectrum of engineering documentation that ranges from terse comments
|
||
|
to detailed prose:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. **Inline comments**: The primary purpose of inline comments is to provide
|
||
|
information that the code itself cannot contain, such as why the code is
|
||
|
there.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. **Method and class comments**:
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Method API documentation**: The header / Javadoc / docstring
|
||
|
comments that say what methods do and how to use them. This
|
||
|
documentation is **the contract of how your code must behave**. The
|
||
|
intended audience is future programmers who will use and modify your
|
||
|
code.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is often reasonable to say that any behavior documented here should
|
||
|
have a test verifying it. This documentation details what arguments the
|
||
|
method takes, what it returns, any "gotchas" or restrictions, and what
|
||
|
exceptions it can throw or errors it can return. It does not usually
|
||
|
explain why code behaves a particular way unless that's relevant to a
|
||
|
developer's understanding of how to use the method. "Why" explanations
|
||
|
are for inline comments. Think in practical terms when writing method
|
||
|
documentation: "This is a hammer. You use it to pound nails."
|
||
|
|
||
|
* **Class / Module API documentation**: The header / Javadoc / docstring
|
||
|
comments for a class or a whole file. This documentation gives a brief
|
||
|
overview of what the class / file does and often gives a few short
|
||
|
examples of how you might use the class / file.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Examples are particularly relevant when there's several distinct ways to
|
||
|
use the class (some advanced, some simple). Always list the simplest
|
||
|
use case first.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. **README.md**: A good README.md orients the new user to the directory and
|
||
|
points to more detailed explanation and user guides:
|
||
|
* What is this directory intended to hold?
|
||
|
* Which files should the developer look at first? Are some files an API?
|
||
|
* Who maintains this directory and where I can learn more?
|
||
|
|
||
|
See the [README.md guidelines](READMEs.md).
|