Restructure Checkers page in the documentation

[szabolcstoth]

The Checkers page currently contains the main groups and inside these groups the rules are grouped by the checker classes. Due to this behavior the rules are not always ordered by their IDs. Example: the Spacing group starts with rule W1006.

The current order inside Spaces:
InconsistentUseOfTabsAndSpacesChecker: W1006
InvalidSpacingChecker: W1001, W1002
MissingTrailingBlankLineChecker: W1003, W1004, W1005

It is obvious that we should put InconsistentUseOfTabsAndSpacesChecker class at the end since it has the W1006.

But what about the following scenario: we add a new rule to InvalidSpacingChecker with W1007 (since we don't want to change the other rules' IDs due to incompatibility issues), how should we order the classes? The only possible solution I can see in this scenario is that we somehow restructure the Checkers page.

Example:

• The page still should have the main groups: Comments, Tags, etc.
• Inside the groups we can have the rules ordered by the IDs (no need to group/separate by the checker classes).
• And we can mention that which checker class contains the given rule (like we mention what parameters does it have).

[bhirsz]

I agree with you. We need to draft how the new documentation will look like and update our templates and data feeder . We use rst and sphinx for documentation generating sphinx rtd scheme. This could serve as basic reference how it could like.

[bhirsz]

Current checkers documentation is also taking a lot of space in the screen per rule. Maybe we could list rules in some kind of table? ref But in that case I don't know how we could include configurable params into it

And we can rename checkers -> rules

[bhirsz]

I refactored our checker docs a bit, you can view test version here: https://robocop.readthedocs.io/en/refactor_docs/checkers.html
Based on master...refactor_docs
Rules are directly under group instead of checker class and are ordered based on rule ID

What do you think & want we can improve further? @szabolcstoth @mnojek

[szabolcstoth]

Yes, this solves the original ordering issue inside the checkers, thanks for the fix!
Later on we can have a brainstorming session about how to improve the page further. 👍

[mnojek]

It works very good, @bhirsz ! I accepted the PR and it can be merged now.