Closed ryanmrichard closed 2 years ago
Merging #42 (d544b42) into master (b2f4e6a) will decrease coverage by
86.90%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.:exclamation: Current head d544b42 differs from pull request most recent head 10c9ca9. Consider uploading reports for the commit 10c9ca9 to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #42 +/- ##
========================================
- Coverage 86.90% 0 -86.91%
========================================
Files 8 0 -8
Lines 863 0 -863
========================================
- Hits 750 0 -750
+ Misses 113 0 -113
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e6a8e2c...10c9ca9. Read the comment docs.
@AutonomicPerfectionist if you build the docs, I now have it setup so that the build will run CMinx, resulting in a folder docs/source/developer/cmake
. There's a couple of problems though:
index.rst
doesn't have a blank line after :maxdepth:2
index.rst
should have a title other than "." (I recommend the name of the directory).cmake
from the page titles? (e.g., have line 3 of docs/source/developer/cmake/find_python_module.rst
just be find_python_module
)find_python_module.rst
: docs/source/developer/cmake/find_python_module.rst:17: WARNING: Field list ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
and the output is in correct. Indenting the second line of the description fixes it.FYI, the command that generates these files is on lines 30-35 of docs/source/conf.py
Other than that I think this is almost ready for a 1.0 (after I write an action to automatically license the files; I'm surprised that no one else seems to have done this yet...)
In regards to 1 and 4, they are possibly a regression from the recent newlines change, I'll have to look into it soon. For 3, that should be pretty simple, just a string rstrip should do it. For 2, I actually fixed this back in August but entirely forgot to make a pull request for it. That is now done in #43
@ryanmrichard wasn't sure if you're aware but you can use Act (https://github.com/nektos/act) to run GitHub actions locally. Certain things don't work quite the same but it's pretty good for testing basic changes before committing, and a lot faster too
@AutonomicPerfectionist thanks!!! I'll give that a go.
@AutonomicPerfectionist huge thanks for the tip, that saved a lot of debugging time. It works locally, but it apparently needs some fine-tuning on GitHub proper
This PR: