Skip to content

Conversation

@user202729
Copy link
Contributor

@user202729 user202729 commented Aug 15, 2025

And redirect readers to the page. I think developers are most likely to want to build the documentation.

I think we should ignore the test-new failure, which is likely an oversight introduced in #39641 . As long as the corresponding test pass in test-long it should be fine.

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise and informative.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

⌛ Dependencies

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 15, 2025

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 33c1f75; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

@user202729
Copy link
Contributor Author

user202729 commented Aug 15, 2025

well, the rendering is actually incorrect. https://doc-pr-40587--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/reference/documentation/sage_docbuild/builders#hunk1

I forgot the trailing _.

should be fixed now, but I figure it's probably a better idea for me to double check later just in case.

(also there's already a highlight:: bash at the start of the document, so that change is actually redundant.)

@user202729 user202729 requested a review from tobiasdiez August 17, 2025 05:07
Copy link
Contributor

@tobiasdiez tobiasdiez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From my side this looks good. Feel free to set it to positive review (perhaps after double checking that it renders properly after the latest merge)

vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2025
sagemathgh-40587: Minor documentation formatting improvement
    
And redirect readers to the page. I think developers are most likely to
want to build the documentation.

I think we should ignore the test-new failure, which is likely an
oversight introduced in sagemath#39641 . As
long as the corresponding test pass in test-long it should be fine.

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->

- [ ] The title is concise and informative.
- [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation
preview.

### ⌛ Dependencies

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on. For example,
-->
<!-- - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency -->
<!-- - sagemath#34567: ... -->
    
URL: sagemath#40587
Reported by: user202729
Reviewer(s): Tobias Diez
@vbraun vbraun merged commit 4758b85 into sagemath:develop Sep 21, 2025
24 of 25 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants