| # Documentation Best Practices |
| |
| "Say what you mean, simply and directly." - |
| [Brian Kernighan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Programming_Style) |
| |
| [TOC] |
| |
| ## Minimum viable documentation |
| |
| A small set of fresh and accurate docs is better than a large |
| 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**. |
| |
| ## 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. |
| |
| ## Delete dead documentation |
| |
| Dead docs are bad. They misinform, they slow down, they incite despair in |
| new community members and laziness in existing ones. 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 the whole community 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 |
| |
| Documentation is an art. There is no perfect document, there are only proven |
| methods and prudent guidelines. See |
| [Better is better than perfect](https://github.com/google/styleguide/blob/gh-pages/docguide/philosophy.md#better-is-better-than-perfect). |
| |
| ## 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? |
| |
| 4. **Design docs, PRDs**: A good design doc or PRD discusses the proposed |
| implementation at length for the purpose of collecting feedback on that |
| design. However, once the code is implemented, design docs should serve as |
| archives of these decisions, not as half-correct docs (they are often |
| misused). See |
| [Implementation state](#Implementation-state-determines-document-repository) |
| below. |
| |
| ## Implementation state determines document repository |
| |
| **If the doc is about implemented code, put it in README.md**. If it's |
| pre-implementation discussion, including Design docs, PRDs, and presentations, |
| keep it in shared Drive folders. |
| |
| ## Duplication is evil |
| |
| Do not write your own guide to a common technology or process. Link to it |
| instead. If the guide doesn't exist or it's badly out of date, submit your |
| updates to the appropriate docs/ directory or create a package-level |
| README.md. **Take ownership and don't be shy**: Other teams will usually welcome |
| your contributions. |