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

docs: update to latest sphinx-design #486

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 13, 2023
Merged

Conversation

agoose77
Copy link
Collaborator

@agoose77 agoose77 commented Apr 3, 2023

A cryptic error message during our docs build is fixed in newer versions of sphinx-design. This PR just bumps that RTD dependency.

@agoose77 agoose77 requested a review from chrisjsewell April 3, 2023 16:21
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (13c6c35) 81.47% compared to head (37c71e0) 81.47%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #486   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.47%   81.47%           
=======================================
  Files          29       29           
  Lines        2618     2618           
=======================================
  Hits         2133     2133           
  Misses        485      485           
Flag Coverage Δ
pytests 81.47% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@agoose77 agoose77 requested a review from choldgraf April 11, 2023 18:37
pyproject.toml Outdated
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ rtd = [
"plotly",
"sphinx-book-theme~=0.3.0",
"sphinx-copybutton",
"sphinx-design~=0.1.0",
"sphinx-design~=0.3.0",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wanna bump this to 0.4.1? Or TBH just remove the pin?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this case, because docs are an application rather than a library, we can pin onto ~=0.4.0 or even ==0.4.1. The former is probably strict enough for now.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah i think it's fine to pin too on theoretical grounds, I am just thinking of how to minimize maintainer toil needed against the risk that something randomly breaks (which imo is low in this case), so that we don't need PRs like this in the future

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure. I can't remember why the docs were broken before this PR, but I suspect it was because we didn't pin something that we should have. I think I'd prefer to manage docs like an app, so that we periodically bump all dependencies, rather than have them break at a random point down the line.

pyproject.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@agoose77 agoose77 requested a review from choldgraf April 13, 2023 10:30
Copy link
Member

@choldgraf choldgraf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lgtm!

@choldgraf choldgraf merged commit 5e7acb3 into master Apr 13, 2023
agoose77 added a commit to aleivag/MyST-NB that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2023
* docs: fix use of sphinx-design

* Update pyproject.toml
@bsipocz bsipocz deleted the agoose77/fix-docs-build branch September 25, 2024 01:32
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants