SOLR-14024 Invalid html generated by changes2html.pl

[asalamon74]

Original lucene-solr pull request: apache/lucene-solr#1060

Description

changes2html.pl generates invalid html

Solution

Fix it to generate a valid html.

Tests

Created the html and tested it using https://validator.w3.org/

Checklist

Please review the following and check all that apply:

• I have reviewed the guidelines for How to Contribute and my code conforms to the standards described there to the best of my ability.
• I have created a Jira issue and added the issue ID to my pull request title.
• I have given Solr maintainers access to contribute to my PR branch. (optional but recommended)
• I have developed this patch against the main branch.
• I have run ./gradlew check.
• I have added tests for my changes.
• I have added documentation for the Reference Guide

[janhoy]

Manual review looks good.

Please indicate a quick way to test the change in practice, i.e. command to invoke the script and what to look for, i.e. can we run a tool on the resulting HTML file to see how the former style was broken and the new is ok?

Is there any visual change in the output, or just "correctness"?

[asalamon74]

I'm calling the following to invoke the script:

./gradlew changesToHtml

It generates the html which can be found in ./solr/documentation/build/site/changes/Changes.html.

I was using https://validator.w3.org/#validate_by_input as a validator a copied the generated html to it. For the original HTML it gave me a couple hundred errors like:

• Self-closing syntax (/>) used on a non-void HTML element. Ignoring the slash and treating as a start tag.
• Element ul not allowed as child of element ul in this context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)
• No li element in scope but a li end tag seen.

The solr/CHANGES.txt change is not unrelated. That empty line caused a problem in the generation (the script was starting a new block because of that).

Visually I tried to keep it as close as possible, there are minor changes, like marginsize.

[janhoy]

Ok, tried it and it looks good. The one (three) errors still there is due to the huge license text comment which consumes >1024 chars, not sure if there is anything to do with that - actually I think we are allowed to use a smaller license text for files like this, see https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#is-a-short-form-of-the-source-header-available

"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements; and to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0. "

Although I think this is not a valid case to use it. No big deal.

[asalamon74]

Interesting, because I don't remember running into this license problem, but @rmuir mentioned a very similar thing in the lucene part of this change: apache/lucene#31

[janhoy]

Thanks András!