Merging long standing refactor branches #1029
Conversation
…e into memberdef-in-groups
I messed this up during the merge. It should be available at the top level as we reference the contents directly and not just in types.
As it has non standard code patterns that we need to keep.
To check if it is still needed, I don't think it is.
The 'parser' target is just an easy name now rather than a duplicate entry.
|
I am curious about your time estimate for this PR. I'm wondering if we should wait on an official release with this or start using a commit hash. |
|
@JasperCraeghs - sorry for the slow response. I'm hopeful that it is only maybe 5 or so hours work to get this in a fit state but my life has been busy of late and I'm clearly not finding chunks of time to work on it. I have time today and have just settled in to work on it. I also have free time the first week of July and hope to finish it then at the latest. |
|
@Rouslan - when you have time, could you let me know if the tests as run by 'make test' all pass on your branch? They don't pass for me on your branch and I'm wondering if I have the incorrect set up. I have tried with the latest doxygen and with 1.9.7 as that seems to be what we're targeting on CI. |
With what are hopefully acceptable changes. Some casts, some ignores, some reshuffles. We could do with some explicit notes about what we're supporting. Which I guess could be inferred from the github action files. But some clarity on what versions are supported, what it means to support certain older versions and some plan for when they can be dropped. Some issues at the moment derive from supporting Python 3.9. Though I think we probably want tests that type check on all versions to keep us honest and clear. (We might have them already.)
I think this is missing and causing some errors on the jobs.
9cfd0d1 to
20fdb97
Compare
This is a guess about what is expected from looking at the doc utils code.
f92f23e to
b9606a9
Compare
As we don't always have ruff installed when we need to make the parser.
291745d to
53792b8
Compare
90f08f9 to
d2a4f12
Compare
We can't render the full docs for the same class twice.
We're happy enough if the pull request trigger is there and we don't need both triggering for each push to a pull request. We might considered having 'push to main' enabled but nothing else.
This renders the title of the groups & pages instead of their less friendly assigned name.
So that we get 'file' instead of 'DoxCompoundKind.file'
|
I think the comparison is looking ok. Definitely a couple of references not being handled in this branch vs main but possibly just less than ideal rather than blocking. It would be good to get them fixed though. The tests are failing and it would be good to better understand them. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the intention of the tests are or what needs to be updated when they fail. I guess sometimes it is the code and sometimes the fixtures but I'm not sure which in this case (though likely the code, I guess.) |
|
@michaeljones Unfortunately, I'm going to be quite busy myself for the next week or so. I'll check it out when I find some time. In the meantime, there are a few things to note: First of all, for Doxygen 1.9.7 (I don't remember about 1.9.5 and 1.9.6, but 1.9.4 should be fine) and up, test_example[cpp_anon] will always fail. The way Doxygen handles anonymous entities changed and this has never been addressed. Make sure you merge my latest changes. Updates to Sphinx and Doxygen broke some of the tests, so I had to make some changes. Unfortunately, my tests are brittle. They rely on the specific output of Doxygen. Several XML attributes are ignored when doing the comparisons but otherwise the tags and non-whitespace text have to match. To accommodate multiple versions, I have a system that allows multiple versions of tests results. For example, in tests/data/examples/test_index, there is "compare.xml" and "compare-1.11.0.xml". For Doxygen versions 1.11.0 and up, "compare-1.11.0.xml" is used; otherwise, "compare.xml" is used. So far, I only made it work, up to version 1.12.0. 1.13.0 introduced a bug that affected the output (doxygen/doxygen#11541), and I had decided to wait instead of incorporating the undesired output. |
This PR is designed to take over from:
It merges them into main and goes step by step to resolve the conflicts. It might be reasonable to squash all the conflict resolution down together but I think we're going to end up keeping some of the rest of the history as it is too large a change to reasonably be held in one commit in some ways.
Checklist
Sponsorship
Thank you to the GDAL Project and Melexis for sponsoring this work.