-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
moving docs to mkdocs #856
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #856 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 100% 100%
======================================
Files 17 16 -1
Lines 3132 2716 -416
Branches 610 518 -92
======================================
- Hits 3132 2716 -416
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
This is gonna be really awesome! |
|
this is ready to review, feedback very welcome. I see need to fix benchmarks before this can be merged, and there's #862 to do later, but unless there are any major problems this should be merged soon since it's already better than what went before. |
|
I'm looking at it now -- this is awesome!! |
|
(Feel free to just mark resolved any suggestions that you disagree with. Also let me know if you don't want me to point out the typos like this.) |
| ``` | ||
| _(This script is complete, it should run "as is")_ | ||
|
|
||
| ## Custom Data Types |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For what it's worth, I personally think this section, short as it is, merits its own top level page, separate from all the other types.
(It may also be worth expanding that page..)
This is such a useful feature and I think it doesn't get the attention it deserves -- it's a shame for it to be buried way at the bottom of the long list of types pydantic provides.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
okay, personally I think it's right here but we should link to it more and expand it to contain more details and a better example. Certainly the current example is awful.
incorporate @dmontagu's suggestions. Co-Authored-By: dmontagu <35119617+dmontagu@users.noreply.github.com>
more missed suggestions. Co-Authored-By: dmontagu <35119617+dmontagu@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@dmontagu thank you very much for your review. I know this stuff isn't much fun, but I'm very dyslexic and corrections like this make the docs a lots easier to use and looks a lot more professional. |
more corrects.
|
Guys, can you please elaborate why did you decided to switch from rst/sphinx to mkdocs? Any particular advantages in favor the latter? |
|
I think the new (hierarchical) organization is a big improvement; it's not just a massive wall of text. I'm not sure that by itself necessitated the move to mkdocs though. I can't speak for what motivated @samuelcolvin to move to mkdocs, but I personally think it now looks much nicer than the old docs page, and hopefully feels a little more modern for prospective new users. And at least one person has commented positively (from the fastapi gitter):
@haizaar Do you have any issues with new docs format? |
|
@dmontagu not at all. They are aesthetically pleasing. Though there are nice sphinx templates our there as well. And of course you can create hierarchical docs with sphinx as well. I wonder if material design was the main thing. Or may be Samuel just wanted get some experience with mkdocs :) Again, I have absolutely no problems/issues with the docs. Just being curious. |
1. Markdown vs. reStructuredTextMany developers find markdown much more intuitive to use than rst. I know rst has many powerful features but it's also extraordinarily convoluted to do simple things e.g. links are I find this amazingly complex. Even after having written thousands of lines of it, I still have to search for an example of things that are trivial in md. I hope people will be more willing to help with the docs now they're written in markdown. 2. mkdocs vs. sphinxmkdocs definitely isn't perfect, there are some design decisions I strongly disagree with. However overall it's a lot more use friendly than sphinx:
Not really, though I do think it's nice.
If only, we used a mkdocs site for the help site of the company I run for many years. mkdocs is an old frenemy. In short:
|
|
Thanks for sharing! Appreciate that! I saw mkdocs becoming quite popular in Python world and was very curious to hear experience from someone who designed to switch. Thanks again! |
* moving docs to mkdocs * transfering readme to md and more * fixing build * splitting usage.md * improving schema.md and index.md * fix make_history.rst * models intro * working on data conversation and required fields * more fixes to models.md * list all standard types supported * list of pydantic types * tweaks * update links in code * Apply suggestions from code review incorporate @dmontagu's suggestions. Co-Authored-By: dmontagu <35119617+dmontagu@users.noreply.github.com> * Apply suggestions from code review more missed suggestions. Co-Authored-By: dmontagu <35119617+dmontagu@users.noreply.github.com> * Apply suggestions from code review more corrects. * cleanup * Field order warning * fix and regenerate benchmarks * format examples better, cleanup * improve schema mapping table * correct highlighting file types in schema.md * add redirects in javascript * add logo
Change Summary
Move all docs to mkdocs
fixes #578
Still to do:
models.mdtypes.md