Add asciidoc highlight test

[hertg]

This is part of #1213. I have created the test file myself based on the AsciiDoctor Syntax Quick Reference.

I actually found a bug on the syntax highlighting with this one. The first line of the following syntax seems to break the highlighting, that's why it's commented out inside the test.adoc file for now, the rest of the syntax highlighting works perfectly.

* [*] checked
* [x] also checked
* [ ] not checked
*     normal list item

The first line breaks the markup but is actually considered valid markup based on the quick reference.

Should I report that on the syntect repo, as it's probably an issue over there?

[sharkdp]

Thank you very much for your contribution!

I actually found a bug on the syntax highlighting with this one. The first line of the following syntax seems to break the highlighting, that's why it's commented out inside the test.adoc file for now, the rest of the syntax highlighting works perfectly.

* [*] checked
* [x] also checked
* [ ] not checked
*     normal list item

Interesting. It seems to be broken on GitHub as well, right?

Should I report that on the syntect repo, as it's probably an issue over there?

If it really is a bug, it should be reported in the AsciiDoc sublime syntax repository (see .gitmodules file).

[sharkdp]

Merging this as-is for now, thank you!

[hertg]

Interesting. It seems to be broken on GitHub as well, right?

Yeah, i saw that too. But to be fair, Github doesn't really have full-fledged AsciiDoctor markup, so that's pretty much expected i think. :)

If it really is a bug, it should be reported in the AsciiDoc sublime syntax repository (see .gitmodules file).

I just opened an issue for this in the repository you mentioned. But it seems that the repo hasn't been updated in 5 years. There are also open PRs lying around since 3+ years, so I don't expect much to happen.

It might be worth to consider another library for the asciidoc highlighting, doesn't really pressure though, should I create an issue about that here so it can be resolved in the future?

P.S. I just checked how the highlighting looks in vim, and it seems that the problem doesn't exist there. But they have implemented the syntax highlighting completely themselves rather than relying on an external dependency. Their highlighting also lacks some features, but at least it doesn't break anything. 😅

[sharkdp]

Thanks!

I just opened an issue for this in the repository you mentioned. But it seems that the repo hasn't been updated in 5 years. There are also open PRs lying around since 3+ years, so I don't expect much to happen.

oh :-/

It might be worth to consider another library for the asciidoc highlighting, doesn't really pressure though, should I create an issue about that here so it can be resolved in the future?

If there is an alternative project - yes please. Otherwise, it's probably going to stay open for a long time.

Another thing that we can do is to fork the upstream repository, potentially merge some of the open PRs and then change our submodule pointer to the fork. I personally don't want to maintain such a fork for AsciiDoc, but if someone wants to do that, I'd be open to retarget our submodule.

[hertg]

If there is an alternative project - yes please. Otherwise, it's probably going to stay open for a long time.

I created the issue #1290 to make sure it's in the backlog.

Another thing that we can do is to fork the upstream repository, potentially merge some of the open PRs and then change our submodule pointer to the fork. I personally don't want to maintain such a fork for AsciiDoc, but if someone wants to do that, I'd be open to retarget our submodule.

There actually are already some forks that are more up-to-date, but I don't know if those are just forks meant for personal use or if they are trying to continue the project.

• AlexCzar/sublimetext-asciidoc
  56 commits ahead, last commit: 2020-08-16
• sambacha/sublimetext-asciidoc
  14 commits ahead, last commit: 2020-05-30