Re: python setup.py check --restructuredtext --strict --metadata fails for valid document with syntax highlighting

> You're right, my apologies. I forgot to look there for aliases, and
> forgot that "code-block" is standard. Please ignore that part.

No problem. Thanks for confirming.

> It would have to be *really* specific. E.g., Docutils would have to
> check that it was called by distutils only.

OK, I updated the patch at https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/270/ to
do this.

> Maybe somebody else can investigate. I don't have much time for
> Docutils these days.

Sure. Is there someone you might suggest? I thought perhaps Günter Milde
(cc'd), since he seems to have touched that file a lot.

Marc

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM, David Goodger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [CC'ing to Docutils-users. Please "reply-all", not just to me.]
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Marc Abramowitz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > First off, thanks David, for taking the time to respond!
> >
> >> "code-block" is not a standard Docutils reST directive
> >
> > Apologies. I'm not too familiar with docutils proper so I may have
> confused
> > docutils with Sphinx. But does the following not mean that "code-block"
> is
> > an alias for "code"?
> >
> > *
> >
> https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/docutils/docutils/parsers/rst/languages/en.py
>
> You're right, my apologies. I forgot to look there for aliases, and
> forgot that "code-block" is standard. Please ignore that part.
>
> >> It makes assumptions that may not always be true
> >
> > Yeah, this is my first time touching docutils so I am not surprised. I'm
> > willing to work on it though. Do you think that if you were specific
> about
> > what those assumptions are that the patch could be made to be acceptable?
>
> It would have to be *really* specific. E.g., Docutils would have to
> check that it was called by distutils only.
>
> The problem in your patch is, you're introducing a dependency on the
> stock RST parser, and client code might be using an alternate parser
> (modified, or different) or none. I don't want to screw 3rd-party code
> that uses Docutils, just to fix Python's bug. This smells kludgey.
>
> I don't understand why the issue is happening. Maybe it is a Docutils
> bug, I don't know.
>
> > Or
> > is there nothing that can be done on the docutils side, because...
> >
> >> If the bug is in Python's distutils, that's where the fix should be
> >
> > Yes, I agree in principle and I mentioned in the sourceforge ticket that
> > this might be more of a distutils problem. The thing is that even if we
> > correct the problem in distutils (which I think is present at least as
> far
> > back as Python 2.7 and as recent as Python 3.4), it won't be available to
> > users until Python 3.5 is released and it will only be available to
> Python 3
> > users; Python 2 folks will be out of luck. So while I agree that fixing
> the
> > problem in distutils might be the more correct approach, I'm also
> thinking
> > about "practicality beats purity".
> >
> > That said, I did submit a patch to CPython at
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue23063 and I'll try to push that through, but
> > like I said, it will only be for Python 3.5 I think. Whereas if we can do
> > something in docutils, then folks can easily upgrade docutils and be
> able to
> > validate more of their RST documents.
>
> Maybe somebody else can investigate. I don't have much time for
> Docutils these days.
>
> David Goodger
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:13 AM, David Goodger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Marc Abramowitz <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > python setup.py check --restructuredtext --strict --metadata fails
> with:
> >> >
> >> > warning: check: Could not finish the parsing.
> >> >
> >> > if the RST document uses code or code-block directives.
> >> >
> >> > This is annoying because the document is valid, but it appears to be
> >> > invalid
> >> > and confuses people.
> >> >
> >> > I filed a ticket for this (with a patch included):
> >> >
> >> > https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/270/
> >>
> >> "code-block" is not a standard Docutils reST directive, so I don't see
> >> how the document could be valid. "code-block" should always break.
> >> Maybe it's a Sphinx extension, and your environment has that
> >> installed. Did you try with just the "code" directive?
> >>
> >> -1 on the patch. It makes assumptions that may not always be true. If
> >> the bug is in Python's distutils, that's where the fix should be. But
> >> first, make sure your document is truly valid.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk