search

executablebooks / markup_test_cases

Markup test cases for source files
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
0 stars 1 forks source link

Informational: Updates to .md parsing -> spinx example #12

Closed rossbar closed 4 years ago

rossbar commented 4 years ago

Here are the other changes I made to this example to test the remaining components from wealth_distributions.md. The example here builds with no sphinx errors and all of the features (citations, image embedding, etc) seem to be working.

The PR would be better suited for the myst_parser repo, but development is pretty active at this moment, so I don't want to clash with everyone's work (as an aside, ExecutableBookProject/myst_parser@01185c1 currently fails to build. I bisected the breaking change to ExecutableBookProject/myst_parser@ae6c3c3 in case this is not a known issue).

The changes are small (mostly related to getting the cite/bibliography stuff working with sphinxcontrib-bibtex) and can be ripped from if people are currently working on the docs/. If no one is currently working on these files in the myst_parser/doc folder and you'd like me to PR over there, please let me know!

rossbar commented 4 years ago

To evaluate the output, install myst_parser@4f5df00 and make html.

choldgraf commented 4 years ago

Do you know if this significantly breaks the content equality between the paired rST example in the same folder? I'm a big +1 on making sure there are no sphinx errors, but I also wanna make sure that those two files are as close to exactly the same as possible so we can compare.

Also, I think it will get confusing if we have the same two files mirrored across two repositories, so I'd prefer if you just updated the files that are in myst_parser. I think we should plan on deprecating this repo soon...

rossbar commented 4 years ago

All good points!

but I also wanna make sure that those two files are as close to exactly the same as possible so we can compare.

I had not been making the corresponding changes to the .rst file because I was only focusing on testing the parsing the .md file. This is a good point though - when making changes to test something in the markdown, I'll be sure to make the corresponding changes in the .rst file.

Also, I think it will get confusing if we have the same two files mirrored across two repositories, so I'd prefer if you just updated the files that are in myst_parser. I think we should plan on deprecating this repo soon...

Totally agree, I only opened this PR to document the changes I had made to get the citations working etc. Looking over the diffs though, I realize they are not as useful as I had intended because the changes to the .md file got conflated with a file rename, which wipes out all the useful info the diff

This was the last of the changes that I had made to test things in this repo so I'll be sure that any future work/changes along these lines happens in the myst_parser repo as previously suggested. It seems like my original concern about duplicating effort was overblown anyways :)