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

Read the Docs fixes and modernisation #489

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 27, 2024

Conversation

trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator

🚀 Pull Request

Description

The valid format of intersphinx mapping has apparently changed.

@trexfeathers trexfeathers linked an issue Sep 27, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@trexfeathers trexfeathers marked this pull request as ready for review September 27, 2024 13:15
@trexfeathers trexfeathers changed the title Fix Readthedocs Read the Docs fixes and modernisation Sep 27, 2024
pp-mo
pp-mo previously approved these changes Sep 27, 2024
Copy link
Member

@pp-mo pp-mo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Happy with this + I have reviewed the docs on the PR+ see it is working OK

However I note that, despite your including a fix to avoid the post-tagged version number, the docs front page itself doesn't show the version.
Can we fix that easily ?

@trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

However I note that, despite your including a fix to avoid the post-tagged version number, the docs front page itself doesn't show the version.
Can we fix that easily ?

@pp-mo I have sorted this - see this example:

image

Note that the version is of course meaningless when building from a pull request, but this at least demonstrates where the information will be displayed. The lack of dirty in the version name also demonstrates that the git stash approach is working.

@pp-mo
Copy link
Member

pp-mo commented Sep 27, 2024

@pp-mo I have sorted this - see this example:
Note that the version is of course meaningless when building from a pull request, but this at least demonstrates where the information will be displayed. The lack of dirty in the version name also demonstrates that the git stash approach is working.

I don't think this is correct, since it reports "0.1dev", but it should be "3.2" or possibly "3.3".
I think this code is the place it comes from, not clear why that would be wrong...

@trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@pp-mo I have sorted this - see this example:
Note that the version is of course meaningless when building from a pull request, but this at least demonstrates where the information will be displayed. The lack of dirty in the version name also demonstrates that the git stash approach is working.

I don't think this is correct, since it reports "0.1dev", but it should be "3.2" or possibly "3.3". I think this code is the place it comes from, not clear why that would be wrong...

It is definitely correct. As I say - pull request builds are meaningless in this regard.

@trexfeathers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

trexfeathers commented Sep 27, 2024

If it helps you feel more confident, here is what I get if I build locally:

image

EDITED: update image for my very latest install

docs/source/conf.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@trexfeathers trexfeathers merged commit 10357ef into SciTools:main Sep 27, 2024
15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix docs build + enable on PRs
3 participants