Markdown processor seems confused when using links

[bitnapper]

When mixing links and other bold or italic text in the Work Description, the interpreter seems to omit some of the formatters as you can see in the following links.

Evidence / Screenshot

• Wenn die Sterne verlöschen
• Die Verschwender vom Mars

Details

• Logged in (Y/N)? not relevant
• Browser type/version? not relevant
• Operating system? not relevant
• Environment (prod/dev/local)? prod

[xayhewalo]

@bitnapper please post a screenshot of the exact markdown used and the result of it's rendering.

[bitnapper]

Here‘s the Markdown

Here‘s the result.

[bitnapper]

Here in widescreen with the complete Markdown.

[miphilomath]

I would like to work on this issue if someone can guide me a little. I looked up the code base to understand which files are handling the markdown.

Found out, openlibrary/core/olmarkdown.py was importing following modules

import re
from infogami.utils.markdown import markdown
from openlibrary.core import helpers as h
... 
...
class OLMarkdown(markdown.Markdown):
  ...
  def convert(self):
          html = markdown.Markdown.convert(self)
          return h.sanitize(html)

But the module markdown was missing which were imported, that could be the root of the issue. Update: NVM. Found that the infogami is a submodule within the repository.

[seabelis]

There's also a problem with formatting in the edition description and TOC. All formatting is ignored (indentation, etc.).

[mekarpeles]

@miphilomath yes please! Your help would be appreciated and @jimchamp and I can help as you have questions

[cdrini]

Based on the comment I think this might've been meant to be assigned to you @jimchamp :)

[mekarpeles]

It seems the problem is that previews work irrespective of where * are however the renderer only works when the * is outside (I think) the []'s. In any case, it either doesn't work when inside or when outside.

The resolutions are either to make this work at the render level or to disable the preview for the not-working case.

@miphilomath does either approach seems easier / more reasonable to you and do you have any further questions which @jimchamp can help with?