distinguish regular modules from module types

[zth]

Fixes #902

@woeps please look through this and say what you think. A few things I can think of right away:

• We don't indicate when a module is implementing a module type. Not sure if this would be relevant for docgen.
• We can have id clashes now I guess, because I think a regular module and a module type with the same name can co-exist in the same module scope. So we need to account for that in the id generation.

[woeps]

Wow, you were fast!

• What about adding the signature field to the Module specific records (like in non-module related tools.docItem constructors? Have it show e.g. "signature": "module M: Example" or for modules not using a previously defined module type "signature": "module AnotherModule: { type t; let x: string; ...".
• Do you refer to @aspeddro s work? He introduced the source record {filepath: string, line: int, col: int}, which should be different in your described case.
• Ideally, I'd like to have a source record also available for the refered module type. The record type tools.docsForModule includes a source field, which describes, where the module was specified. But if the module uses a module type, there is currently no source for that module type. Having such info would be very handy for linking up the different files in a site generator.
• Am I right to assume, these changes do not affect the language server's auto-complete suggestions? - I only tested tools locally.

[woeps]

I'd also expect "id": "DocExtractionRes.M" to be present. - Which is missing here?

[woeps]

docstrings shouldn't be empty, since the module type contains:

module type Example = {
  /***
  this is an example module type 
  */
...
}

[zth]

I believe /*** is for the top level only. If you want a comment on an in-file module you need to use /** just above the module definition, like regular docstrings.

[woeps]

You confused me for a minute there.. ;)
I don't think so.
See my simple example:
https://github.com/woeps/rescript-tools-doc-md/blob/54b93c3da527074be767227c057e5b10dbdf7b85/test/ExampleModule.res#L6

https://github.com/woeps/rescript-tools-doc-md/blob/54b93c3da527074be767227c057e5b10dbdf7b85/test/md/Example.md?plain=1#L166

The difference in my example is the usage inside a submodule. - but not a module type.

[woeps]

Any further updates/thoughts on this one?

[zth]

@woeps not really, but I'd be happy to try and fix it quickly if I understood exactly what needs to be done. Will try and re-read the instructions.

[woeps]

@zth I previously created several comments in this PR regarding overall expectations of docgen.
The PR does, what's stated in the title and actually does not need (should not) address my regards.

I'd suggest to merge this as is and I'll create follow up issues for next steps. (e.g. id-ambiguity)

[zth]

@woeps ok, merging this and we'll continue in separate issues for the other things. Please open new issues as you see fit.