|
Documentation Channel for #raku | This channel is logged | Roadmap: github.com/raku/doc/wiki Set by [Coke] on 23 May 2022. |
|||
|
01:03
cfa joined
|
|||
| cfa | [Coke]: i'm seeing a few failures like this, | 01:07 | |
| # Failed test 'Pod::FormattingCode<2463305740736>.type<C<Cool>> should be C<Cool> - bad parent FormattingCode - self reference' | |||
| (the self-reference failure is correct) | |||
| there are also a number of false positives like this: | 01:08 | ||
| 'L<C<Bool>|/routine/Bool> should be L<C<Bool>|/type/Bool> - bad link' | |||
| i.e. methods that match known types | |||
|
01:24
cfa left
|
|||
| Geth | doc/main: 8200e07f8e | cfa++ | doc/Language/5to6-perlvar.rakudoc Fix link target |
01:28 | |
|
03:04
rf left
09:04
raiph joined
09:05
raiph left
|
|||
| Geth | doc/type-links: 6ac220d0b0 | (Will Coleda)++ | xt/rakudoc-types.rakutest Allow links to /routine pages cfa++ |
13:34 | |
| [Coke] | cfa: that allows anything with a link to /routine/* to pass | ||
| sounded like the first item with the formattingcode was that the test was OK, but the output was badly rendered. | 13:35 | ||
| Geth | doc/type-links: 814fd3a4e1 | (Will Coleda)++ | xt/rakudoc-types.rakutest Fix interpolation Avoid interpreting the literal < as an index of the variable. |
13:53 | |
| [Coke] | fixed that also | ||
| Getting closer... | |||
|
14:22
cfa joined
|
|||
| cfa | [Coke]: 👍 | 14:22 | |
| should i rebase normalise-type-links | |||
| onto main? | |||
| (or is having it as a child of your test branch convenient for now?) | 14:23 | ||
| we're down to 62 failures btw | |||
| Geth | doc/type-links: b986c47e24 | (Will Coleda)++ | xt/rakudoc-types.rakutest typo, @patrickbkr++ |
14:37 | |
|
14:48
cfa left
|
|||
| [Coke] | I was going to rebase and squash commits but if you're downstream I didn't want to break it. | 14:54 | |
| can you rebase when I'm done and be OK? | |||
| (and force push, there'd be a force push in there) | 14:55 | ||
| ... oops, he left. | 15:04 | ||
| .ask cfa - is it ok if I rebase test-links branch and squash commits and force push? | |||
|
15:12
cfa joined
|
|||
| cfa | [Coke]: sure, please go ahead | 15:12 | |
| i'll force push a revised branch (rebased onto main) within the next hour or so | |||
| remaining automated rewrites are possible but probably more error prone; given the number of failures we have, curated edits seem to make more sense? | 15:13 | ||
| perhaps we can automate stuff like B<Str> => L<C<Str>|/type/Str> if it's recurrent | 15:14 | ||
| Geth | doc/type-links: 5 commits pushed by (Will Coleda)++ | 15:23 | |
| [Coke] | .. why is that different commits? | ||
| I think the branch is rebased on main and is now one commit | |||
|
15:45
rf joined
|
|||
| cfa | why is what different commits? | 15:46 | |
| is Geth misreporting something? | 15:47 | ||
| [Coke] | I just squashed everything and pushed a single commit, so I'm not sure why geth is reporting the old individual commits there... but it was a force push, so not normal anyway | 15:48 | |
| cfa | ah okay | ||
| i'll refresh my branch in a sec | |||
| so you can take another look | |||
| done: github.com/cfa/raku-doc/tree/norma...type-links | 15:56 | ||
|
18:30
cfa left
20:27
raiph joined
|
|||
| raiph | o/ | 20:28 | |
| First, thanks ugexe++ for fixing up some doc links in an SO answer I wrote | 20:29 | ||
| Second, is there some group initiative related to such updating | 20:31 | ||
| Third, is there a plan to bring missing content back online? | 20:34 | ||
| I ask the last because I'm thinking how best to go through my 420 answers | 20:40 | ||
| And I've yet to find the content I linked to in some cases | 20:41 | ||
| So I'm thinking it's gone for the time being (and maybe for good) | |||
| More generally there are issues like that | 20:42 | ||
| Content moving, sections being renamed, etc | 20:43 | ||
| And I'm wondering if it's best to wait a year or so for that to settle | |||
| For example, most of the links ugexe updated don't arrive at their intended target | 20:44 | ||
| Some go to the right page but not the section | |||
| Others go to the wrong page though the right (new) one is in place | |||
| For others still the original content doesn't seem to currently be in place anywhere in the site | 20:45 | ||
| For reference, here's the sample SO that ugexe updated: | 20:57 | ||
| stackoverflow.com/a/54713872/1077672 | |||
| And here is his revision work: stackoverflow.com/posts/54713872/revisions | 20:59 | ||
| Ah, I've got an idea about how best to go forward. | 21:04 | ||
| Anyhow, any related info / comments / links appreciated | 21:05 | ||
| Goodnight! | |||
|
21:14
raiph left
|
|||
| [Coke] | Yes, we are trying to fix all missing content and #ids. - if you see a class of items missing that isn't on the doc/website issue list, please ping us. | 23:35 | |