On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 09:08:36PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Sat, 5 Jun 2021 12:11:09 -0300 > Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <n@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 03:17:59PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > As discussed at: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/871r9k6rmy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > It is better to avoid using :doc:`foo` to refer to Documentation/foo.rst, as the > > > automarkup.py extension should handle it automatically, on most cases. > > > > > > There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: > > > > > > 1. when :doc: tag is used to point to a kernel-doc DOC: markup; > > > 2. when it is used with a named tag, e. g. :doc:`some name <foo>`; > > > > > > It should also be noticed that automarkup.py has currently an issue: > > > if one use a markup like: > > > > > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst > > > - documents all of the standard testing API excluding mocking > > > or mocking related features. > > > > > > or, even: > > > > > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst > > > documents all of the standard testing API excluding mocking > > > or mocking related features. > > > > > > The automarkup.py will simply ignore it. Not sure why. This patch series > > > avoid the above patterns (which is present only on 4 files), but it would be > > > nice to have a followup patch fixing the issue at automarkup.py. > > > > What I think is happening here is that we're using rST's syntax for definition > > lists [1]. automarkup.py ignores literal nodes, and perhaps a definition is > > considered a literal by Sphinx. Adding a blank line after the Documentation/... > > or removing the additional indentation makes it work, like you did in your > > 2nd and 3rd patch, since then it's not a definition anymore, although then the > > visual output is different as well. > > A literal has a different output. I think that this is not the case, but I > didn't check the python code from docutils/Sphinx. Okay, I went in deeper to understand the issue and indeed it wasn't what I thought. The reason definitions are ignored by automarkup.py is because the main loop iterates only over nodes that are of type paragraph: for para in doctree.traverse(nodes.paragraph): for node in para.traverse(nodes.Text): if not isinstance(node.parent, nodes.literal): node.parent.replace(node, markup_refs(name, app, node)) And inspecting the HTML output from your example, the definition name is inside a <dt> tag, and it doesn't have a <p> inside. So in summary, automarkup.py will only work on elements which are inside a <p> in the output. Only applying the automarkup inside paragraphs seems like a good decision (which covers text in lists and tables as well), so unless there are other types of elements without paragraphs where automarkup should work, I think we should just avoid using definition lists pointing to documents like that. > > > I'm not sure this is something we need to fix. Does it make sense to use > > definition lists for links like that? If it does, I guess one option would be to > > whitelist definition lists so they aren't ignored by automarkup, but I feel > > this could get ugly really quickly. > > Yes, we should avoid handling literal blocks, as this can be a nightmare. > > > FWIW note that it's also possible to use relative paths to docs with automarkup. > > Not sure if you meant to say using something like ../driver-api/foo.rst. > If so, relative paths are a problem, as it will pass unnoticed by this script: > > ./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check > > which is meant to warn when a file is moved to be elsewhere. Ok, it > could be taught to use "../" to identify paths, but I suspect that this > could lead to false positives, like here: > > Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst: # ln -s ../../uncompressed/u > Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst: # cd ../../class/fs > Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst: # ln -s ../../header/h Yes, that's what I meant. Ok, that makes sense. Although after automarkup.py starts printing warnings on missing references to files (which is a patch I still need to resend), it would work out-of-the-box with relative paths. automarkup wouldn't face that false positives issue since it ignores literal blocks, which isn't as easy for a standalone script. But that's still in the future, we can discuss what to do then after it is implemented, so full paths seem better for now. Thanks, Nícolas > > If you meant, instead, :doc:`../foo`, this series address those too. > > Regards, > Mauro
