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

Update library.rst #469

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 29, 2018
Merged

Update library.rst #469

merged 1 commit into from Jan 29, 2018

Conversation

@Aiky30
Copy link
Contributor

@Aiky30 Aiky30 commented Aug 9, 2017

Following the instructions it was not obvious how the subclassed config should be added to the program definition. I needed to read the program API to find the relevant information: http://docs.pyinvoke.org/en/latest/api/program.html#module-invoke.program.

All examples previous to this section have been accurate and the examples contain all of the relevant information to get the example working.

Following the instructions it was not obvious how the subclassed config should be added to the program definition. I needed to read the program API to find the relevant information: http://docs.pyinvoke.org/en/latest/api/program.html#module-invoke.program.

All examples previous to this section have been accurate and the examples contain all of the relevant information to get the example working.
@bitprophet
Copy link
Member

@bitprophet bitprophet commented Aug 10, 2017

I feel like the "here's specifically how to take your custom Config class and give it to a Program" bit should live in the note:: itself perhaps. Either way, thanks for the input!

@Aiky30
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Aiky30 Aiky30 commented Aug 14, 2017

I agree and started to add it to the note hence the addition of a note segregation. The reason that I opted against it and added it to the example is because the note is outside of the relevant section titled: "Changing filenames and/or env var prefix". It could be possible to just create a note in that section I guess.

Happy to help more regarding this if required.

@bitprophet bitprophet merged commit ef8af11 into pyinvoke:master Jan 29, 2018
4 checks passed
4 checks passed
codecov/patch Coverage not affected when comparing d1c3df9...ef8af11
Details
codecov/project 94.23% remains the same compared to d1c3df9
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
bitprophet added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 29, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants