GhostDoc: Looking for Testers

I’m planning a first public beta of GhostDoc 1.3.0 towards the end of July. A couple of private builds have already been released to colleagues and people on the net who offered their help. So far feedback has been pretty good. People like the new features, some issues have been found, most of them could be fixed in the following builds.

Now I would like to have a couple more people to test the current build. If you’re interested, contact me via the contact form. Please tell me about your system (e.g. which other Add-ins are installed), since when you have been using GhostDoc and how often you use it. I’ll then send you an email with the download link (when waiting for a reply, please take time zone differences into account ;-).

Here are the new features you can try out in the preview:

• New rules for using "inherited" documentation, including base class members and members of implemented interfaces. The inherited documentation will be cleaned from single <para> tags and the texts will be tweaked (e.g. when the summary for an interface method starts with "When implemented by a class....", and the summary is inherited by the method that is actually the implementation).
• GhostDoc now updates existing documentation. Empty tags (<summary>, <returns>, <param>) will be filled according to the generation rules, existing text remains unchanged. The update reorders the parameter documentation if the order of the parameter changes, and removes documentation for parameters that no longer exist.
• User defined ("custom") rules using e.g. regular expressions for matching names and/or types.
• New rule for "On..." methods -- no more "Ons the click" ;-)
• Rule for static constructors.
• Rule for the Finalize method (destructor syntax in C#).
• Rule for event handler methods as they are created by the WinForms designer.
• Rule for boolean properties.
• Rules (both custom and built-in) can now be customized by editing templates that are used by the text generation rules.

A few words about the quality of this preview: Answering the obvious question “does it fry my data and/or my Visual Studio installation?”, I can say that the Visual Studio integration and installation/uninstallation are at least as good as in version 1.2.1, so I wouldn’t hesitate to run the setup on production machines. The current problems are mostly missing features, some usability issues and the online help that hasn’t been updated yet.