| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great Hugo, I also had been dreaming of this recently!
Sorry, something went wrong.
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| def run(self) -> list[Node]: | ||
| versionlabels[self.name] = sphinx_gettext( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How will this work in a translation, _add_glossary_link sets marker = "Soft deprecated"?
Also, you'll have to add the message to dummy.html for it to be extracted IIRC.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How will this work in a translation, _add_glossary_link sets marker = "Soft deprecated"?
I just pushed bee4f6c, I think that might do it?
Also, you'll have to add the message to dummy.html for it to be extracted IIRC.
Thanks, added.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that might do it?
It will do it for Polish, but I worry in other languages it might not (I fear it is possible in some there may be a slight difference between the term's stand-alone form and it in a sentence).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This standalone text is only used for replacing in the full sentence, and not used on its own. So each translation will need to put whatever they have in the sentence.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but how are translators supposed to know that?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we add a comment in Doc/tools/templates/dummy.html?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Translators won't see it unfortunately, Sphinx doesn’t support adding comments for translators. Can we have :term:`soft deprecated` in the string?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wrote hugovk#81.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| versionlabel_classes[self.name] = "" | ||
|
|
||
| for node in result: | ||
| # Add "versionchanged" class so existing theme CSS applies |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use yellow for versionchanged and thread safety notes, I worry they all look a little too similar. I would suggest it gets its' own styling, maybe orange?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, yellow is more of a "heads up, note this". Orange might be considered closer to "red for danger", and we don't want to suggest it's going away.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, yellow is more of a "heads up, note this". Orange might be considered closer to "red for danger", and we don't want to suggest it's going away.
Indeed, but we also want it to stand out compared to other notes (at least that's what I think). Some functions have quite long lists of yellow change notes that, e.g. I often ignore when just looking for current information about a thing, and would probably miss a soft deprecation note at the end. We aren't removing it, but we also don't want people using it.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use green for additions, yellow for changes and red for deprecations so I would suggest using blue/purple for soft deprecation. A soft deprecation is a change, but not one that screams "I am new!" or "I am bad" but rather "please note this".
To have the same color on both themes, I would go with 3b82f6 or 1e6ff5.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's the current, #3b82f6 and #1e6ff5 for each theme:
If we change the colour, we'll override it via https://github.com/python/python-docs-theme.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I see, that's not ideal. I also checked #3b82f6 and neither dark (4.33) nor light (3.68) meet the requirements. Similarly for #1e6ff5, it meets the requirements only in light (4.52) and not in dark (3.52).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, we can use different colours for light and dark. Anyway, we can bikeshed that in the theme.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wrote python/python-docs-theme#305.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <stan@python.org>
|
Would you mind also updating C API entries that only reference :term:`soft deprecated` (without the .. deprecated directive)? I decided not to use it when soft-deprecating things for #141004. For example:
I'm also happy to do this in a follow-up if you'd rather land this PR sooner. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@ZeroIntensity I've done those three, but there's quite a lot so I'll let you do the rest in a follow-up :) Alternatively, you're welcome to push to this branch or open a PR against mine. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Soft-deprecated aliases | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ERROR: Removed IDs found The above HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases c-api/file.html: deprecated-api Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
This change was intentional as it makes it explicit these aren't going away, and the header is new in 3.15.
Shall I:
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seeing as it's quite new I think it is unlikely we're breaking anyone’s reference. So, I suggest we create a "remove from here in 3.16" section in removed-ids.txt for such changes.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feedback for the tool output:
The above HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases c-api/file.html: deprecated-api Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
"above" should read "below". Can improve spacing to make both warnings more obvious:
The below HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases c-api/file.html: deprecated-api Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"above" should read "below". Can improve spacing to make both warnings more obvious:
"above" is technically correct IIRC (from when I tried to add color), it is just GitHub mangling stdout/err and the line ends up above. We should have an issue for further improvements.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, indeed, we can have different output:
ERROR: Removed IDs found The above HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases c-api/file.html: deprecated-api Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/24515704242/job/71659379442?pr=148630
ERROR: Removed IDs found c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases The above HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. c-api/file.html: deprecated-api Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/24517209594/job/71664949402?pr=148630
After ignoring file.html:
ERROR: Removed IDs found c-api/allocation.html: deprecated-aliases The above HTML IDs were removed from the documentation, resulting in broken links. Please add them back. Alternatively, add them to Doc/tools/removed-ids.txt.
https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/24521766250/job/71681524452?pr=148630
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
$${\color{purple}LGTM}$$!
We haven't covered all entries that are :term:`soft deprected` , but I think they can be done in follow ups.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Yeah, let's get this merged. I'll handle the remaining C API entries later. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks @hugovk for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry, @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.14 due to a conflict. cherry_picker e9bbf8617dff942360b5d800769c00440dc93bac 3.14 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry, @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.13 due to a conflict. cherry_picker e9bbf8617dff942360b5d800769c00440dc93bac 3.13 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| These are :term:`soft deprecated` aliases to existing functions and macros. | ||
| .. soft-deprecated:: 3.15 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ZeroIntensity This section was first added to docs in #141146 and backported to 3.13.
That PR said:
There are already deprecated, so this can be backported.
That links to code from PR #23586, which deprecated them in code comments in 3.10.
So, should this say 3.15 or 3.10 or something else?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A 'lil ping @ZeroIntensity in case you missed these.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I missed this, thanks for the ping.
I think 3.10 makes the most sense here. For clarification, some aliases documented by #141004 were marked with "soft deprecated" without a formal decision by the C API WG to mark them as such. I did this because:
This means that I bypassed the formal process for soft-deprecation on a few things (sorry!), so, at least for aliases, there's not always a clear version in which something was soft deprecated. For .. soft-deprecated markers, I think it would be best to use the version in which the thing became an alias, or if it started out as an alias (such as PyBUF_WRITEABLE), we should just use the version in which it was added.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Soft-deprecated API | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| .. soft-deprecated:: 3.15 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similarly, this section was added in #141634 and backported to 3.13.
I don't think this was deprecated in code comments. What version should we have?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ZeroIntensity And what about this one?
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
(cherry picked from commit e9bbf86) Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <stan@python.org>
|
GH-148714 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
GH-148715 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
(cherry picked from commit e9bbf86) Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <stan@python.org>
Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <stan@python.org>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Follow on from #86519 and #148100.
Add a new Sphinx soft-deprecated directive, which explicitly links to the glossary definition, and is yellow instead of red because it does not indicate removal.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--148630.org.readthedocs.build/