(I got your e-mail about this; I've just been quite busy :))

If you want to do any specific analysis, you'll need to write your own
analyzer and probably hack the generator.  You can see the current
quality analyzer here:

http://dcov.rubyforge.org/svn/lib/dcov/analyzers/quality_analyzer.rb

I'm going to hack on this in the next few weeks to make it really easy
to specify your own analyzers (a config file + command line param).
I've just had my head down in work/other projects/finishing up my
book, and I didn't think anyone actually used dcov. :P

Thanks,
Jeremy

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Jari Williamsson
<jari.williamsson / mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
> I tried dcov (http://dcov.rubyforge.org/) for testing the quality of the
>  RDoc documentation. However, the only result I can get is whether a
>  method/class contains a comment or not (the comment can even be empty to
>  flag as valid!)
>
>  To be really useful, I would need a more "deep" analyze, such as length
>  of documentation, when there are code examples included, if :call-seq:
>  is used, etc. And when looking at the dcov sources, most of the
>  information I'm actually looking for seems to be supported by the file
>  dcov/generators/html/generator.rb (lines 51 to 54). But, non of that
>  information appear in the resulting coverage.html file.
>
>  Does anyone else get dcov to work regarding extended document coverage?
>  Or does anyone know of any alternative for document coverage testing of
>  Ruby sources?
>
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  Jari Williamsson
>
>



-- 
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/