Thanks for the PR!

This section of the codebase is owned by @saschanaz - if they write a comment saying "LGTM" then it will be merged.

Not ready for review
Ready for review

I'm yet to review this, but please do not convert to sync APIs.

Sure

Hello @saschanaz
I have switched the old functions to async, but the new function is still sync because the emitter is not async. I tried switching it to async, but it broke.

I have updated the context to not call the API in the emitter, but that cause the test to fail, I will fix it later

Done @saschanaz

Hello @saschanaz, @jakebailey
Do you have any other change requests in this PR?

Hello @saschanaz
I have updated the emitter but I think the formatted is better to be a separate issue

I have updated the script to use promise @saschanaz

Hello @saschanaz
Do you have any changes?

Hello @saschanaz
Sorry, I was very busy. It seems that the old comments.json file was using the same format that I am using. If that format is incorrect, we should create another issue for that.

Not sure I follow? Following the format of the current comments.json would be actually ideal, but I don't think this PR is currently doing that.

The comment.json:

{
  "InterfaceName": {
    "properties": {
      "property": {
        "foo": {
          "comment": "(comment)"
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

This PR right now:

{
  "InterfaceName.foo": "(comment)"
}

Which looks more concise but with extra conversion step to the comment.json format anyway. Since we are automating it here it should directly emit the comment.json format.

Sorry, i got confused. I will fix it