-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
Remove doctype from resolver #5230
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
Remove doctype from resolver #5230
Conversation
fc8d84c
to
1c068f0
Compare
Also, our current logic is making wrong assumptions about mkdocs projects https://www.mkdocs.org/user-guide/configuration/#use_directory_urls |
path = filename + '.html' | ||
else: | ||
path = '' | ||
return path |
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.
I do feel like we introduced this for a reason, but perhaps we've removed that path from the codebase or something. I agree that the less we do with guessing URL's for things, the better, but I could still see this breaking in a random place.
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.
So, what I was thinking, this is used to reverse the url results from search, so all urls are present in the same format as the docs are build, rather than always including .html
/index.html
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.
That's the only place where I can think it could break something, but when indexing from search we save the whole file, with the extension, no need to reverse anything from there. The other places we really don't use this at all.
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.
I'm still a little worried that this might break things, but I don't have a good way of testing it beyond just deploying it. @agjohnson do you have any memory of why we added this?
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.
@stsewd if you feel like this has been tested enough, I'm fine merging it and seeing if anything blows up in prod :)
Ok, couldn't find anything breaking. Just more bugs related to the doctype thing that are present in master :) @ericholscher can you approve this again to merge? |
Total explanation why this is safe to remove in:
#4638 (comment)
#4638 (comment)
Ref #4638