-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-110631: Fix wrong reST markup and list numbers. #110885
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ subject value: | |||
If only keyword patterns are present, they are processed as follows, | |||
one by one: | |||
|
|||
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. | |||
1. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sphinx <7 doesn't seem to support them, so they are actually just regular paragraphs starting with I. ...
. Letters like a. b. c. ...
are also not supported, so we only have numbers left and have to rely on the indentation to distinguish the levels.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see.
Well, we need to keep support for older Sphinx for the benefit of Linux distros (and are testing it on CI), but can we use Sphinx 7 for our actual main build and deploy?
The Roman numerals won't cause any errors for for Sphinx <7, and they'll be better rendered for for Sphinx 7.
Re: #99380 and cc @AA-Turner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I should be able to fix the indentation/rendering of the nested lists while keeping the roman numerals, the only issue is that since they are rendered as <p>
s rather than <li>
s, it's technically incorrect (at least on Sphinx <7). Not sure if that matters though (maybe for screen readers or similar cases?).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually if I fix it for <7, once we upgrade to 7 it will break again.
On <7 I could do:
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject.
* ...
* ...
which will be seen as a paragraph followed by a list, but on 7 it would have to be:
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject.
* ...
* ...
since it will be seen as a list item followed by a sublist that needs to be indented.
If I leave the indentation on <7, it will render an additional blockquote around the sublist, and it will cause sphinx-lint
to complain, so switching to numbers might still be the best compromise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind too much if the display isn't perfect for <7, as long as it still builds and looks reasonable.
Then we can use 7 for our deploys, and sphinx-lint will be happy too.
Would that work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sphinx-lint
will be sad on 7 too, since the checker currently ignores alphabetic lists (like Sphinx 6 does) and sees this as an incorrectly indented list under a paragraph, regardless of the Sphinx version used.
I tried adding support for alphabetic lists, but it's a can of worms with many false positives.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, maybe we should ignore the Sphinx Lint warning here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. | |
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't looked into this in a while, but if possible we should find a solution that is both rendered correctly and that is not reported by sphinx-lint
as error.
Fixing sphinx-lint
is also an option if the error is reported mistakenly, but avoiding alphabetic lists and roman numerals might still be a simpler solution.
@ezio-melotti @hugovk Is this something that we can move forward? Or should it be closed? |
The cited issues were with Sphinx 6 and earlier, which we have now dropped. |
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ subject value: | |||
If only keyword patterns are present, they are processed as follows, | |||
one by one: | |||
|
|||
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. | |||
1. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. | |
I. The keyword is looked up as an attribute on the subject. |
@@ -1120,13 +1120,13 @@ subject value: | |||
pattern fails; if this succeeds, the match proceeds to the next keyword. | |||
|
|||
|
|||
II. If all keyword patterns succeed, the class pattern succeeds. | |||
2. If all keyword patterns succeed, the class pattern succeeds. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2. If all keyword patterns succeed, the class pattern succeeds. | |
II. If all keyword patterns succeed, the class pattern succeeds. |
|
||
If any positional patterns are present, they are converted to keyword | ||
patterns using the :data:`~object.__match_args__` attribute on the class | ||
``name_or_attr`` before matching: | ||
|
||
I. The equivalent of ``getattr(cls, "__match_args__", ())`` is called. | ||
1. The equivalent of ``getattr(cls, "__match_args__", ())`` is called. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1. The equivalent of ``getattr(cls, "__match_args__", ())`` is called. | |
I. The equivalent of ``getattr(cls, "__match_args__", ())`` is called. |
2. Once all positional patterns have been converted to keyword patterns, | ||
the match proceeds as if there were only keyword patterns. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2. Once all positional patterns have been converted to keyword patterns, | |
the match proceeds as if there were only keyword patterns. | |
II. Once all positional patterns have been converted to keyword patterns, | |
the match proceeds as if there were only keyword patterns. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. Thanks @ezio-melotti and @AA-Turner for moving this forward.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--110885.org.readthedocs.build/