:help docs look broken

[AlexKurisu]

NVIM v0.10.0-dev-2590+g8955cef0c6.
:help docs look broken. :help vim.diagnostic.Opts, for example, looks like this:

This is not a colorscheme problem as nothing changes after switching to :colorscheme default

[justinmk]

Don't think this is related to the grammar (this repo), unless #125 was already added to Nvim and caused a regression? @ObserverOfTime

[clason]

Can confirm @ObserverOfTime

[AlexKurisu]

unless #125 was already added to Nvim and caused a regression

I use https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter and it is updated to commit 90a3962 there

[ObserverOfTime]

Works on my machine 🤔

[ObserverOfTime]

If the parser works then it's likely an issue with the tooling. I'll update Neovim to HEAD and check.

[AlexKurisu]

If the parser works then it's likely an issue with the tooling. I'll update Neovim to HEAD and check.

I have tree-sitter 0.22.1 if that matters

[ObserverOfTime]

Yep, worked on neovim/neovim@6d680d9 (last commit I'd built) but is broken on neovim/neovim@8955cef.
I believe this needs to be fixed in Neovim (likely just an update) and there's nothing to be done here.

[clason]

@AlexKurisu can you try the latest commit?

[ObserverOfTime]

Ackshually, some docs have multiple modelines. 🤓

[clason]

Yep, worked on neovim/neovim@6d680d9 (last commit I'd built) but is broken on neovim/neovim@8955cef. I believe this needs to be fixed in Neovim (likely just an update) and there's nothing to be done here.

Please bisect then. The last commit is unrelated.

[AlexKurisu]

@AlexKurisu can you try the latest commit?

I don't know how :(

[clason]

Rather unsurprisingly, it's neovim/neovim@cb46f6e

@gpanders

[ObserverOfTime]

Rather unsurprisingly, it's neovim/neovim@cb46f6e

Yeah I figured that was one of the likely candidates.

[clason]

neovim/neovim#27853 is the upstream issue.

(Note that the queries bundled in Neovim -- which differ from those here -- do not have this issue, so copying those to your config is a workaround in the meantime.)

[justinmk]

@clason is there somewhere that explains 3089b79 and/or why it was also reverted?

[clason]

Nothing explains that commit, which is why I immediately reverted it. I would have force-pushed to erase it from existence if that were allowed.