Improve warnings in fix_doctest #2602
Conversation
|
@mortenpi does this seem sane? If so I'll go ahead and add tests and a changelog entry. |
| @@ -490,21 +490,23 @@ function fix_doctest(result::Result, str, doc::Documenter.Document; prefix::Muta | |||
| r = Regex(rcode) | |||
| codeidx = findfirst(r, content) | |||
| if codeidx === nothing | |||
| @warn "could not find code block in source file" | |||
| @warn "could not find code block in source file $filename" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually it would be kinda helpful if one would see the code block. Any reason why I shouldn't just print it here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that would be fine. I think we do that for some other messages already.
| # next look for the particular input string in the given code block | ||
| # make a regex of the input that matches leading whitespace (for multiline input) | ||
| composed = prefix.content * result.raw_input | ||
| rinput = replace(Documenter.regex_escape(composed), "\\n" => "\\n\\h*") | ||
| r = Regex(rinput) | ||
| inputidx = findfirst(r, code) | ||
| if inputidx === nothing | ||
| @warn "could not find input line in code block" | ||
| startline = count("\n", data) | ||
| @warn "could not find input line in code block in $filename:$startline" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And here the "current" code block which was found: any particular reason not to print it here? Would have been helpful to me in the past
|
I haven't tested this, but from the looks of it, LGTM. Any extra context like this in the error messages is good. It would be good to have a test case, yes. We have some tests here for the fixing here (https://github.com/JuliaDocs/Documenter.jl/tree/master/test/doctests/fix). Not sure how easy it would be to expand those though to somehow test the new things. Maybe a few simple |
Resolves #2601
TODO: