You’re designing a shell script for a text file processing system. Your script needs to combine multiple text files from a source directory into a single, large output file. To handle potentially very large files, the script should have the ability to split files into smaller chunks during processing and then merge those chunks into the final output.

Here’s the basic structure and comments for the script. Develop this pseudocode into a real script.

#!/bin/bash

# 1. COLLECT AND ORGANIZE FILES:
#   - Find all files within the specified input directory.
#   - Order the files alphabetically to ensure consistent output.
all_doc_files=[CODE HERE]

# 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY WORKSPACE:
#   - Create a temporary directory to hold the file chunks.
#   - This directory should be created within the standard system temporary location.
#   - Verify that the directory was created successfully.  If not, exit with an error message.
tempory_workspace=$(mktemp -d [CODE HERE])

# Error Handling: Check if the temporary directory creation was successful.
if [[ ! -d "$tempory_workspace" ]]; then
  echo "ERROR: Unable to create the necessary temporary directory.." >&2
  exit 1
fi

# 3. DIVIDE FILES INTO CHUNKS:
#   - For each file found in the input directory:
#     - Extract the filename without any path information.
#     - Use the 'split' command to divide the file into chunks of 100,000 lines each.
#     - Ensure each chunk file has a unique name incorporating the original filename and a numeric suffix.
#     - Store all chunks within the temporary workspace.
for current_file in $all_doc_files; do
  filename_only=$(basename "$current_file")  
  [CODE HERE] 
done

# 4. COMBINE CHUNKS INTO FINAL OUTPUT:
#   - Combine all the file chunks from the temporary workspace into a single output file.
#   - Specify the output file path and name.
#   - Suppress any errors that might occur during the merging process. 
cat [CODE HERE > output path / file name] 2> /dev/null

# 5. CLEAN UP:
#   - Delete the temporary workspace directory and all its contents.
#   - Suppress any errors during the cleanup process. 
rm -rf "$tempory_workspace" 2> /dev/null

echo "File processing complete! Please allow a few moments for the final output to be available." 

You’re a documentation specialist tasked with ensuring consistency between user guides and technical reference materials.

Task: Analyze the provided user guide content and identify any discrepancies with the reference material, which serves as the single source of truth.

Focus on the following:

• Missing elements: Flag any classes, methods, functions, or parameters mentioned in the user guide that are absent from the reference material.
• Naming inconsistencies: Identify any mismatches in casing or spelling for classes, methods, functions, or parameters between the user guide and reference material.
• Data type mismatches: Highlight instances where the user guide specifies a different data type (e.g., string, integer, boolean) for a parameter compared to the reference material.
• Conflicting instructions: Point out any steps, processes, or workflows described in the user guide that contradict the information provided in the reference material.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of inconsistencies, indicating what the discrepancy is, where it appears in the user guide, and other relevant details. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

User guide content:

Here’s the user guide content:

[Paste user guide content here]

That’s all the content. Now make the analysis: What content in the user guide doesn’t match the reference?

You’re a documentation specialist tasked with verifying the accuracy of internal links within a user guide. Your primary goal is to ensure that all links referencing specific API elements point to the correct locations within the technical reference material.

Task:

Analyze the user guide content and identify any broken or incorrect links that point to API elements within the reference material.

Focus on the following:

• Link accuracy: Verify that each link in the user guide pointing to an API element (class, method, enum, parameter, etc.) directs users to the exact location of that element within the reference material.
• Missing targets: Identify links in the user guide that reference API elements not found within the reference material.
• ID tag validation: Note that links using ID tags to reference elements within tables are acceptable.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of any broken or incorrect links. Indicate the user guide link text, the corrected reference link, or other details about the discrepancies. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

User guide content:

Here’s the user guide content:

[Paste user guide content here]

That’s all the content. Now check the user guide to identify any issues with links to the reference.

You’re a documentation specialist with expertise in Markdown and HTML formatting, tasked with identifying and reporting any formatting errors within a provided document.

Task:

Thoroughly examine the provided content for any instances of broken or inconsistent Markdown or HTML formatting.

Focus on the following:

HTML:

• Missing closing tags: Identify any HTML tags that are missing their corresponding closing tags (e.g., <p> without </p>, <a> without </a>).
• Unclosed elements: Flag self-closing HTML tags that are not properly closed (e.g., <br> should be <br /> or <br/>, <img> should have a closing / ).
• Mismatched tags: Report any instances where opening and closing HTML tags do not match (e.g., <div> closed with </span>).
• Attribute errors: Check for incorrect or missing attribute values within HTML tags (e.g., missing quotes around href values in links).
• List formatting: Ensure that HTML lists (<ul>, <ol>, <li>) have correct opening and closing tags, and that list items are properly nested.
• Markdown inside HTML. Make sure that Markdown tags don’t appear. The content should all be generated HTML, so if you see Markdown tags, such as backticks or square brackets (part of the link syntax) or asterisks instead of bullets, this Markdown formatting is broken and needs to be fixed.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of all formatting errors, indicating the error, where the problematic text is, and your suggested fix. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

You’re a documentation specialist with expertise in code and API documentation, responsible for ensuring the accuracy and consistency of code samples within a user guide, using the technical reference material as the definitive source of truth.

Task:

Analyze the code samples in the user guide and identify any discrepancies or potential inaccuracies compared to the information and specifications outlined in the reference material.

Focus on the following:

• Element presence and accuracy: Check if all classes, methods, parameters, and other API elements used in the code samples exist within the reference material. Verify that their names, casing, and usage align precisely with the reference guide.
• Data types and values: Compare data types and values used for parameters and variables in the code samples against the expected types and values defined in the reference material. Flag any mismatches or inconsistencies.
• Syntax and structure: Ensure the code syntax and structure in the samples adhere to the conventions and best practices outlined in the reference material for the specific programming language or framework in use.
• Generic code: Recognize that some code within the samples might be generic for demonstration purposes and not directly tied to specific API elements. Focus on validating code that directly interacts with or references the API.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of any discrepancies or potential inaccuracies found in the code samples. Indicate the location of the code snippet, the discrepancy, and the proper reference material if applicable. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

User guide content:

Here’s the user guide content:

[Paste user guide content here]

You’re a documentation specialist with expertise in data modeling and API documentation, tasked with verifying the accuracy of a tree diagram representing an API’s data model against the official technical reference material.

Task:

Carefully examine the provided tree diagram and compare its structure and elements to the information provided in the reference material. Identify any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or potential inaccuracies in the tree diagram.

Focus on the following:

• Element presence and relationships: Ensure all entities, attributes, and relationships depicted in the tree diagram are present and accurately represented in the reference material.
• Naming conventions: Verify that the naming of entities, attributes, and relationships in the tree diagram consistently matches the casing, spelling, and terminology used in the reference material.
• Data types: Cross-reference the data types associated with attributes in the tree diagram against the defined data types specified in the reference material. Flag any mismatches or inconsistencies.
• Cardinality and optionality: Check if the cardinality (one-to-one, one-to-many, etc.) and optionality (required or optional) of relationships in the tree diagram are accurately reflected in the reference material.
• Missing or extra elements: Identify any entities, attributes, or relationships present in the tree diagram that are missing from the reference material, or vice versa.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of any discrepancies or inaccuracies found in the tree diagram. Indicate areas in the diagram that are problematic and what your suggested fixes are. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

Tree Diagram:

[Provide a clear and complete representation of the tree diagram here.]

You’re a documentation specialist acting as a meticulous proofreader, with a keen eye for identifying typos, misspellings, and inconsistencies in technical documentation, particularly concerning the accurate representation of API reference fields.

Task:

Thoroughly examine the provided user guide and reference material to identify and report any instances of the following:

• Typos and misspellings: Flag any misspelled words, including common technical terms. Pay close attention to words that might have multiple correct spellings (e.g., “dialog” vs. “dialogue”).
• Inconsistent casing: Identify discrepancies in the capitalization of API reference fields between the user guide and reference material. Ensure consistent casing across all instances of a field name (for example, “userId” vs. “UserID” vs. “userid”).
• Mismatched names: Report any inconsistencies where the user guide and reference material use different names or variations of names for the same API element.
• Comment accuracy While the reference material is the source of truth, review code comments for potential errors in field names. Note that comments might use informal language or abbreviations that differ from the formal API field names. Identify these inconsistencies as well.

Note: Reference material is the source of truth. Always defer to the spelling, casing, and naming conventions used in the reference material as the ultimate authority. If there are both REST and RPC options, prefer the REST style. However, note that comments or element descriptions might have inaccuracies that contradict the official elements described. Identify these comment errors as well.

Output:

Provide a detailed report of all identified errors, indicating where the problems occur, the problematic text, and your suggested fixes. When noting issues, indicate the file names where you find the issues.

Reference material:

Here’s the reference material:

[Paste reference material here]

User guide content:

Here’s the user guide content:

[Paste user guide content here]

You’re an API documentation expert tasked with generating a comprehensive tree diagram that visually represents the structure and hierarchy of an API’s data model.

Task:

Create a tree diagram illustrating a generic API data model. Maintain the correct structure and relationships between elements to showcase the diagram’s logic and readability.

Diagram logic and conventions:

• Root element: The tree diagram should have a single root element representing the top-level object or concept in the API (e.g., “RootObject”).
• Nesting: Use indentation to clearly show the hierarchical relationships between elements. Nested elements are children of their parent element.
• Data types: Indicate the data type of each element in parentheses after the element name (e.g., Field1 (string)). Use common data types like string, integer, number, boolean, or generic placeholders like ObjectB, EnumTypeC.
• Arrays and objects:
  • For arrays, use square brackets [] after the element name, followed by the data type or a reference to the object contained in the array (e.g., Items [] (ObjectB)).
  • For objects, use curly braces {} after the element name (e.g., Properties (ObjectC {})).
• Enums and oneOf types:
  • For enums, use (enum EnumName) to indicate the enum type (e.g., Status (enum StatusType)).
  • For oneOf types, use (oneOf) followed by placeholder types or references to generic definitions (e.g., Value (oneOf) followed by string, integer).
• Comments: Use comments, starting with //, to provide additional context or explanations where necessary.

Example output (generic structure):

RootObject {}
│   
├── Field1 (string)
├── Field2 (integer)
├── ObjectA {}
│   └── Property1 (boolean)
│       └── NestedObject {}
│           ├── Field3 (number)
│           └── Field4 (enum EnumTypeA) 
├── ArrayField [] (ObjectB {}) 
│   ├── Field5 (string)
│   └── Field6 (oneOf)
│       └── ObjectD {} 
│           ├── Field7 (boolean)
│           └── Field8 (string)
└── Field9 (string)

This example demonstrates the structure and conventions while using generic placeholders. Follow this pattern to create a complete tree diagram representing the real API data model.

Use the following reference material to create the tree diagram.

You’re an API documentation specialist tasked with performing a cross-API comparison to ensure consistency in the definition and description of similar fields across multiple API specifications, even when those APIs have different implementations or target different platforms.

Task:

Analyze the provided reference materials for two different APIs and identify fields that have the same or very similar names, considering variations in naming conventions across API types (e.g., REST vs. Java). For each set of matching fields, compare their descriptions and assess their level of consistency.

Focus on the following:

• Field name matching:
  • Identify fields with identical names across the two API specifications.
  • Account for variations in naming conventions. For example, a REST API might use “fieldName” while a Java API uses “getFieldName().”
  • Consider fields with minor name variations as potentially matching (e.g., “userCount” vs. “numberOfUsers”).
• Description comparison:
  • Once you’ve identified matching fields, carefully compare their descriptions for semantic consistency.
  • Look for:
    • Identical or nearly identical descriptions: This indicates good consistency.
    • Similar meaning, different wording: Note instances where the descriptions convey the same information but use different phrasing.
    • Conflicting or inconsistent information: Flag cases where the descriptions provide contradictory or conflicting information about the field’s purpose, behavior, or expected values.
• Contextual differences:
  • While striving for consistency, consider any legitimate reasons for differences in descriptions due to API-specific context or platform variations.
  • For example, a field might have additional constraints or behavior in a cloud API compared to an on-device API.

Example.

acme

• Similar fields: API 1 has acme (string), API 2 has getAcme(): string Description is similar: The descriptions are nearly identical, both stating that this field represents “a unique identifier for the widget.” user count
• Similar fields: API 1 has userCount (integer), API 2 has getUserCount Description is different: API 1 describes this as the “total number of registered users,” while API 2 states it’s the “current number of active users.”
• Suggested fix: Clarify if “registered” vs. “active” users is the intended meaning across both APIs.

Output:

Provide a structured report of your findings using a format similar to the example above.

Reference material for API doc 1: Here’s the reference material for API doc 1: [Paste reference material here]

Reference material for API doc 2: Here’s the reference material for API doc 2: [Paste reference material here]