[Question] Is there any way to prevent pdoc from documenting method objects? about pdoc

[mhils]

• Is my code written "incorrectly" with relation to how pdoc works that isn't obvious to me?
• Is there a flag that I can add to pdoc to write a static reference to the in-memory object? (I don't believe so)

Not really, that all looks reasonable. We normally try to detect memory addresses and remove them from output, not sure why this is not happening here:

pdoc/pdoc/doc.py

Line 1183 in 3e93213

formatted = re.sub(r" at 0x[0-9a-fA-F]+(?=>$)", "", str(param))

Could you please try to remove the dollar sign from the regex and see if that fixes things?

• Is there a way to tell pdoc to ignore / exclude an entire directory tree from documentation? So I don't have to add @private to all of the docstrings individually.

Yes, see https://pdoc.dev/docs/pdoc.html#exclude-submodules-from-being-documented

[mhils]

Happening now! :)

[lhriley]

Okay, so removing the $ as suggested seems to have resolved the id being included. In fact removing the entire (?=>$) lookahead seems to have no obvious negative effect. I wrote a bit of perl (sed should also work) to workaround this in the meantime:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use Tie::File;

@ARGV == 1
    or usage("Incorrect number of arguments\n");

tie my @file, "Tie::File", $ARGV[0] or die $!;

for (@file) {
    $_ =~ s/(<span[^<]+object<\/span>)\s*<span[^<]+at<\/span>\s*<span[^<]+0x[a-f0-9]+<\/span>/$1/gx;
}

Which runs like this:

find docs/ -type f -exec "${SCRIPT_DIR}/documentation-cleanup.pl" {} \;

[lhriley]

Thanks for the quick turnaround on the fix @mhils . Any idea on when you plan to make the next release?

[lhriley]

Thanks @mhils ! 🏅