Add new cs:condition element to choose #260
Conversation
|
PS - I'm getting confused by working with the different base branches. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
bdarcus
force-pushed
the
condition-element
branch
from
8242828
to
1c25906
Compare
|
I resolved your requested changes @bwiernik, but I'm not sure how to formally do that in the review system ATM. Also rebased. In any case, should be ready to test. |
@bwiernik - if you have time in the next few days, can you please figure out how to properly get this setup for merging in v1.1? I'm hoping to we can close 1.0.2 work ASAP to avoid some of this confusion as we wrap up 1.1. |
|
Just set the base branch to v1.1 (I just did that). |
|
How weird; when I did that earlier, it resulted in some funky results. Maybe subsequent changes resolved that. |
Actually, now i see what I earlier saw, which confuses me. See all those commits on this PR? It looks to me like this has become the new 1.1 branch! Also, I had to commit a white space fix, thinking I would just squash commit this PR, but that doesn't appear possible now, without screwing things up further, or losing history? |
No, I don't see the commits in this PR on the v1.1 branch: https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/commits/v1.1 |
|
To fix (this might be helpful for someone in the future), I:
|
This adds a modified version of the CSL-M conditions element and condition child as an option to configure more complex conditional rules. Also splits off the cs:choose section into a separate file. Closes #255
bdarcus
force-pushed
the
condition-element
branch
from
9c09d86
to
48920e9
Compare
|
Anyone have a chance to test this? I did, but am not the best person to test it. Hoping to merge later today or tomorrow. |
|
Will be able to test on Monday.
|
|
Bruce, when you find that your fork or local copy of a repo is screwed up, it’s often best to reset from the upstream master: |
|
I decided to merge it. We'll have to test 1.1 anyway. |
|
I tried to test v1.1, but I have errors here. Does that branch work for you? |
|
I see an error now. Trying to figure it out, and how it got there.
|
|
I just pushed a bug fix. Try again.
Was basically mistakes that we made earlier, that trang did not pick up.
Trang seems to only give errors when there are syntax mistakes.
|
|
I think there's another bug. |
|
Now fixed. |
|
Ok, it seems to work now. |
|
But: we still need to wrap the the conditions under |
|
Auto-complete should require the cs:citations wrapper.
BTW, for a variety of reasons, it would be very helpful if you guys could figure out how to describe, in natural language, how to transform from attribute to element form.
I can then add that to the upgrade xslt, and we can in turn use it to add content to the test suite, docs, etc.
|
Currently, yes. But is that on purpose? I think we've said we can do without. |
|
It's a decision we can revisit. I added it at @bwiernik's request.
It's not required, and I'm agnostic, but I figured better to err on the side of caution if in doubt.
|
|
His main point was that the conditions should appear an bloc at the beginning. That would also be required without the additional element. But I can live with that as well. |
|
Yeah, I don't care one way or the other so long as all |
This adds a modified version of the CSL-M conditions element and condition child as an option to configure more complex conditional rules. Also splits off the cs:choose section into a separate file. Closes citation-style-language#255
This adds a modified version of the CSL-M conditions element and condition child as an option to configure more complex conditional rules. Also splits off the cs:choose section into a separate file. Closes #255
Description
This adds a modified version of the CSL-M condition element as an option
to configure more complex conditional rules.
Also splits off the cs:choose section into a separate file.
Closes #255
RFC
Could people please test this, both the actual code, and also the docstrings, in a validating edtior (like Atom), and post feedback?
Will it be totally clear for style authors how this would work if we merge this?
Type of change