Not sure, if we really want to have RST formatted descriptions in our code. An other approach would be to adapt the script that generated the documentation, so it creates valid RST, without losing information (in doubt, do the same replacement as now done manually: *all* to :strong:*all*).

I suggest:

+++ b/docs/manuals/scripts/generate-resource-descriptions.py
@@ -260,7 +260,10 @@ class BareosConfigurationSchema2Sphinx(BareosConfigurationSchema):
     def getDescription(self, data):
         description = ""
         if data.get("description"):
-            description = self.indent(data.get("description"), 3)
+            # Some descriptions contains text surrounded by '*'.
+            # This regex puts backticks around these texts.
+            description_rst = re.sub("(\*.*?\*)", "`\\1`", data.get("description"))
+            description = self.indent(description_rst, 3)
         return description

I suggest:

+++ b/docs/manuals/scripts/generate-resource-descriptions.py
@@ -260,7 +260,10 @@ class BareosConfigurationSchema2Sphinx(BareosConfigurationSchema):
     def getDescription(self, data):
         description = ""
         if data.get("description"):
-            description = self.indent(data.get("description"), 3)
+            # Some descriptions contains text surrounded by '*'.
+            # This regex puts backticks around these texts.
+            description_rst = re.sub("(\*.*?\*)", "`\\1`", data.get("description"))
+            description = self.indent(description_rst, 3)
         return description

adding only backstick is not enough, you need the :strong: too, but I don't see why we would like to change the method used already.
i just fixed something the way the code already is doing so.

see

grep -Rn "\`" docs/manuals/source/include/autogenerated/*.json

54 times used

adding only backstick is not enough, you need the :strong: too,

okay, that is very easy to adapt.

but I don't see why we would like to change the method used already. i just fixed something the way the code already is doing so.

The description field has not been intended to be used in RST documentation only. In fact, when starting with this, documentation has been in Latex. Also it might be used in the future for some online help in the webui/bconsole. Therefore I would prefer if the description would stay as plain text.

adding only backstick is not enough, you need the :strong: too,

okay, that is very easy to adapt.

but I don't see why we would like to change the method used already. i just fixed something the way the code already is doing so.

The description field has not been intended to be used in RST documentation only. In fact, when starting with this, documentation has been in Latex. Also it might be used in the future for some online help in the webui/bconsole. Therefore I would prefer if the description would stay as plain text.

This make sense. shall I move those extra information to the corresponding extra file in docs/manuals/source/manually_added_config_directive_descriptions ?