Hi Mauro, On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 09:34:22AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Sun, 6 Jun 2021 19:52:25 -0300 > Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <n@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > 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. > > > Yeah, that's what I was suspecting, based on the comments. > > Maybe something similar to the above could be done also for some > non-paragraph data. By looking at: > > https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/doctree.html > > It says that the body elements are: > > admonition, attention, block_quote, bullet_list, caution, citation, > comment, compound, container, danger, definition_list, doctest_block, > enumerated_list, error, field_list, figure, footnote, hint, image, > important, line_block, literal_block, note, option_list, paragraph, > pending, raw, rubric, substitution_definition, system_message, > table, target, tip, warning Ok, I went through each one by searching the term on [1] and inspecting the element to see if it contained a <p> or not. The vast majority did. These are the ones I didn't find there or didn't make sense: comment container image pending raw substitution_definition system_message target We can safely ignore them. And these are the ones that matter and don't have paragraphs: 1. literal_block 2. doctest_block 3. definition_list 4. field_list 5. option_list 6. line_block 1 and 2 are literals, so we don't care about them. 3 is the one you noticed the issue with. It's worth mentioning that the definition term doesn't have a paragraph, but its definition does (as can be checked by inspecting [2]). 4 is basically the same as 3, the rst syntax is different but the output is the same. That said, I believe we only use those to set options at the top of the file, like in translations, and I can't see automarkup being useful in there. 5 is similar to 3 and 4, but the term is formatted using <kbd>, so it's like a literal and therefore not relevant. 6 is useful just to preserve indentation, and I'm pretty sure we don't use it in the docs. So in the end, I think the only contenders to be added to automarkup are definition lists, and even then I still think we should just substitute those definition lists with alternatives like you did in your patches. Personally I don't see much gain in using definitions instead of a simple paragraph. But if you really think it's an improvement in some way, it could probably be added to automarkup in the way you described. Thanks, Nícolas [1] https://sphinx-rtd-theme.readthedocs.io/en/stable/index.html [2] https://sphinx-rtd-theme.readthedocs.io/en/stable/demo/lists_tables.html?highlight=definition%20list#definition-lists > > So, perhaps a similar loop for definition_list would do the trick, > but maybe automarkup should also look at other types, like enum lists, > notes (and their variants, like error/warning) and footnotes. > > No idea how this would affect the docs build time, though. > > > 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. > > Checking the code or doing some tests are needed for us to be sure about what > of the above types docutils don't consider a paragraph. > > Thanks, > Mauro
