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

DEFAULT_ORPHANS inconsistent with documentation #1568

Closed
kernc opened this issue Dec 26, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@kernc
Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 26, 2014

The documentation for DEFAULT_ORPHANS setting says:

The minimum number of articles allowed on the last page. Use this when you don’t want the last page to only contain a handful of articles.

However, with

DEFAULT_PAGINATION = 1
DEFAULT_ORPHANS = 1

and with three articles paginated, one appears on the first page and two on the second. The same setup with DEFAULT_PAGINATION = 2 produces a single, unpaginated page.

So it seems that (DEFAULT_ORPHANS + 1) is the minimum number of articles allowed on the last page.

@leotrs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 1, 2016

@kernc can you still replicate this?

@kernc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 14, 2016

Seems so. With pelican git, given three articles in a paginated category,

DEFAULT_PAGINATION = 1
DEFAULT_ORPHANS = 1

results in two pages (1+2). Expected are three pages (1+1+1).

Likewise,

DEFAULT_PAGINATION = 2
DEFAULT_ORPHANS = 1

results in a single, unpaginated page. Expected are two pages (2+1).

Both of these behaviors are inconsistent with docs for DEFAULT_ORPHANS.

Setting in both above cases DEFAULT_ORPHANS = 0 results in expected behavior (as noted above). This seems to indicate DEFAULT_ORPHANS is really interpreted as DEFAULT_ORPHANS + 1.

@leotrs

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 14, 2016

Sounds like a change in documentation could solve this issue. PRs are welcome.

@kernc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 14, 2016

That would be the easy and probably invalid fix. Got something better in #1992, I hope. 😃

@kernc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 16, 2016

Resolution: invalid #1992 (comment).
Thanks.

@kernc kernc closed this Aug 16, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.