[Enhance] Add CCE specific see also sections to transformer and template #73
Conversation
| {%- endfor -%} | ||
|
|
||
| {%-for s in pd_seealso -%} | ||
| <h3 class="seealso_name"><a href="{{ s }}.html">{{ s }}</a></h3> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe strip the <a> – presumably it's not linking anywhere useful if it's for generic PD objects
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah is the HTML doc a FluCoMa specific thing? In the case, indeed bye bye html
flucoma/doc/transformers.py
Outdated
| data['seealso'] = [x for x in tidy_split(data.pop('see-also',''))] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| try: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like overkill. Does it need a warning. Wouldn't
data['max_seealso`] = data.get('max_seealso`,'').split(',') do the trick, without the need for try..except?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
give or take some curious use of backticks instead of single quotes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have to say I prefer my overkill as its obvious what happens in either scenario. Happy to budge if you think its better to go your way though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just going from my own experience parsing the transformer code for the first time I found the many nested dict.pop() sort of stuff quite windy to get my head around but thats just my 2c.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay this is much more simplified now :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great. My only reservation is that now we have
see-alsowhich is FluCoMa relatedmax-seealsopd-seealsosc-related-- which is actually in SC called "see also", so maybe we need to changesc-relatedtosc-seealso
and I wouldnt be opposed to changing see-also to flucoma-seealso.
I think this would make more clear to anyone coming into the RST what these are for and which are parallel to each other.
|
The naming being consistent would make it obvious how all those bits talk to each other, I agree. What does @weefuzzy think of that? |
|
Ths is also made slightly more complicated by the YAMl to RST conversion so I think it best to put it into a separate PR |
This reverts commit 239fd91.
This enables you to define:
in the YAML docs which is then rendered in the appropriate templates.
I've opted for a relatively permissive
try/Exceptblock to catch cases where these new things are not defined or just not needed. It thusly throws a warning if they aren't which given the current unfinished state of the docs is a bit noisy.On another note does this block up the YAML to RST milestone?