chore: Switch from edx-sphinx-theme to sphinx-book-theme

[xitij2000]

The edx-sphinx theme is being deprecated, and replaced with sphinx-book-theme. This removes references to the deprecated theme and replaces them with the new standard theme for the platform.

Testing instructions:

• Run make docs and see that the docs are generated properly and use the sphinx-book-theme

See openedx/public-engineering#200

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @xitij2000! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum threads
• timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
• partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
• any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (4edda50) 86.13% compared to head (94144af) 86.13%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #426   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.13%   86.13%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines         952      952           
  Branches      156      156           
=======================================
  Hits          820      820           
  Misses         88       88           
  Partials       44       44           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.13% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[mphilbrick211]

Hi @xitij2000 - looks like there's some failing tests on this one.

[xitij2000]

Hi @xitij2000 - looks like there's some failing tests on this one.

It seems the test failures are happening due to a change in linting rules which were updated during the requirements upgrade. So I'm limiting all these PRs to just changes to docs related requirements.

[xitij2000]

The coverage failure seems to be due to reasons outside of this PR since this doesn't touch any non documentation code.
Given that this repo is to be archived anyway, would it be OK to merge this as-is, if at all?

[mphilbrick211]

The coverage failure seems to be due to reasons outside of this PR since this doesn't touch any non documentation code. Given that this repo is to be archived anyway, would it be OK to merge this as-is, if at all?

@jmbowman - flagging this for you. Thanks!

[Cup0fCoffee]

👍

• I tested this: ran make docs
• I read through the code

[feanil]

1 change, then I can merge.

[xitij2000]

@feanil Tests are failing in this and some other repos due to codecov being missing.

I can remove the dependency but am not sure if this is the appropriate PR for it. Perhaps as a separate commit in the PRs? Or do I wait till that is corrected in a separate PR before rebasing these PRs?

[feanil]

I've got a separate PR to fix it, that I'm waiting for review on: #431

[feanil]

@xitij2000 you should be ableto rebase this now and it should pass tests.

[xitij2000]

@xitij2000 you should be ableto rebase this now and it should pass tests.

Done!

[openedx-webhooks]

@xitij2000 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.