Покрытие документации общей проверкой и скрипт ссылок на пул-реквест - #17
Merged
Merged
Conversation
coverage_problems даёт обе стороны разности и сторожа пустого читателя; читатель переменных научился видеть имя, записанное в константу, поэтому страница установки судится и в обратную сторону.
changelog-link.py ставит ссылку в записи верхнего раздела обеих редакций, переносит её на отдельную строку при полной ширине и пересобирает зеркала.
Ссылка проставлена самим scripts/changelog-link.py - первый живой запуск.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Two backlog items that are both about the same thing: work the repository was doing by hand and a
neighbour had already automated.
The coverage checks come from the shared guard
check_toolsandcheck_environmenteach wrote the set difference out in full. The tools copyguarded against an empty sources side and judged both directions; the environment copy did
neither. That is the gap
coverage_problemsin docsguardexists for, and the version here is already pinned at
v0.8.0. What stays in the script is whatthe sources are and where the pages are.
Turning on the other direction for variables needed one fix first. The reader only saw a variable
asked for by name, and
EDT_BRIDGE_LANGandEDT_BRIDGE_PLUGIN_INDEXare read through a constantbound above:
So both were invisible to the check, the installation page could have dropped either without a
word, and with phantoms on they would have been reported as documented-but-not-read. A second
pattern, the same shape elemctl uses, makes them visible. It requires the name to fill the quotes
on its own, so
set "EDT_BRIDGE_TOKEN=..."in the batch file the auto-start writes is not takenfor a declaration.
What did NOT move:
claim_problems. It guards a statement several documents and the code all haveto make in the same words, and its table earns itself after a correction has reached one place and
left the others behind. Nothing here has drifted that way. The one candidate worth checking, the
port the bridge listens on, is spelled 8770 in all thirteen places that name it. The reason is
written down in the module docstring so the next reader does not have to check again.
scripts/changelog-link.pyEvery changelog entry ends with a link to its pull request, in both editions, and the number only
exists once the pull request is open. Writing that into
CHANGELOG.mdanddocs/ru/CHANGELOG.ru.mdby hand, at a 100-character wrap, is how one of the two ends up wrong. The script is elemctl's,
adjusted for this repository:
docs/ru/;node scripts/sync-docs.mjsand nothing else. The command reference is builtby a second generator that reads
--help, and a changelog entry cannot change it;mainred. It can makescripts/check_docs.pyreport a word the source no longer carries, since the guard reads everydocs/*.ru.md. That is the reason the rebuild still runs and still sets the exit code.The script is born under both conventions the repository now guards: the process it starts names
its encoding, and the write passes
newline="".python/tests/test_conventions.pycoversscripts/, so neither is a promise.How it was verified
python -m pytest -qis 192 passed, 1 skipped, up from 180: nine tests for the new script andthree more around coverage, including the two directions and a reader that has gone quiet.
python scripts/check_docs.pyis green, and the link on the entries below was written by the newscript rather than by hand.