C#: Implement tooltips for Signals and Properties in the inspector.

[magian1127]

    /// <summary>
    /// tip text
    /// </summary>
    [Export]
    string s1 = "AAAA";

resolve godotengine/godot-proposals#8269

[geekley]

Would it be possible to reuse this implementation for documentation of GDShader uniform fields? They are shown in the inspector, and it would be really useful for sharing shaders; e.g. on sites like https://godotshaders.com

[van800]

If this gets approved, it looks like worth setting
GenerateDocumentationFile in the Godot net sdk.

[mhilbrunner]

Removing the documentation label, as while this PR deals with documentation generation/display, this is more suited for the dotnet team to handle :)

[magian1127]

Remove the need for GenerateDocumentationFile=true.

[mads-fs]

I feel like this implementation would be better if the ExportAttribute was expanded with one extra optional field tooltip or description rather than using code comments to do it. While I see the flexibility in doing it this way it does feel cleaner in my opinion. Because the comments I leave in my code might make sense for a developer but not a designer and so I'd have to make my comments designer friendly every time I use the ExportAttribute.

Consider the following use-case:

Below I have some arbitrary code stub that uses the summary comment to decorate the field such that it would appear in the Godot editor. But I actually also need to annotate the code with a comment because of the TODO. This is not an uncommon use-case by any mean.

///<summary>
/// Change this string to set the state of the game.
///</summary>
// TODO: remember to expand parsing to include special characters
[Export] private string importantString

---

Now consider my suggestion:

// TODO: remember to expand parsing to include special characters
[Export(tooltip: "Change this string to set the state of the game.")]
private string importantString

To me it's a lot cleaner and it allows me to separate developer concerns from non-developer concerns.

[jwodicka]

Also hoping to see this feature land - adding a note here since the last comment on this issue raises a potential objection to this design and proposes an alternative, but that alternative was discussed (and the implemented approach justified) in the related conversation at godotengine/godot-proposals#8269 . From the current state of that discussion, there seems to be broad agreement that a PR like this one could go forward.

Like many of the other commenters, I'm not in love with C#'s XML doc syntax, but interoperability with all my other tools that expect XML docs is a really big win. I think we'd gain a lot by starting there, and supporting the standard doesn't prevent us from allowing more Godot-like syntax for folks who want it in the future.

[magian1127]

I updated the code, but I'm not sure why the PR was automatically closed, and I can't open it anymore.
https://github.com/magian1127/godot/tree/4.0tip