Skip to content
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

Add Sphinx correctness checking for our docs to CI #291

Open
2 of 4 tasks
jli opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 0 comments
Open
2 of 4 tasks

Add Sphinx correctness checking for our docs to CI #291

jli opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@jli
Copy link
Contributor

jli commented Dec 2, 2020

  • Make sure latest docs build without errors
    • Use -n for nitpicky mode. Generates some warnings about bad links we should fix.
  • Consider checking validity of links? (sphinx-build -b linkcheck docs docs/_build/linkcheck)
    • Sphinx 3.2.0 added checking for local links, which causes a bunch of false positives. Think we can fix by using references instead of links.
jli pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2020
- upgrades Sphinx from 1.5.6 (from 2017-05) to 3.1.2 (2020-07)
- switch to sphinx-multiversion from sphinxcontrib-versioning

Relevant changes in Sphinx are mostly a bunch of bugfixes and improved
HTML output: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/changes.html
Some of the HTML output got a little fancier, but not that noticable.

(Sphinx 3.1.2 is chosen because Sphinx 3.2.0 adds local link checking,
which doesn't quite work right with our docs. Also see
#291)
muzigao pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2021
- upgrades Sphinx from 1.5.6 (from 2017-05) to 3.1.2 (2020-07)
- switch to sphinx-multiversion from sphinxcontrib-versioning

Relevant changes in Sphinx are mostly a bunch of bugfixes and improved
HTML output: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/changes.html
Some of the HTML output got a little fancier, but not that noticable.

(Sphinx 3.1.2 is chosen because Sphinx 3.2.0 adds local link checking,
which doesn't quite work right with our docs. Also see
#291)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant