Nix Documentation | 399 Members | |
| Discussion about documentation improvements around the Nix ecosystem | 78 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Jan 2024 | ||
| * As I said in my review comments, this is looking really good, and if I had merge powers, I'd hit merge. But I also am not in touch with the details in a way that that infinisil or fricklerhandwerk might be, so it's a good thing I don't have merge powers. Anyway I just want to say, as one new contributor to another, in case you do find it frustrating (not sure): please don't feel (too) frustrated by the fact that this is a process that will take time because both fricklerhandwerk and infinisil:
I would suggest putting it up as a point for discussion in the meeting agenda for next week. It tends to get sorted out super fast in these meetings, because of the communication setup. In the meantime I found it helpful to move onto other projects/PRs. I think of PRs as seeds that I plant... | 09:03:07 | |
In reply to @bzzm3r:matrix.org As the author of rfc145 and the creator of https://noogle.dev i can say: It is very much feasible to autogenerate documentation from doc-comments. At least the API descriptions of all functions in nixpkgs. Roughly 95% of what is in Noogle currently could also be autogenerated by any other tool. I think one of the next important steps is to migrate to "doc-comments" ( asymmetric I've briefly looked into nrd (nixos-render-docs), and opened this issue: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/280514 | 09:07:31 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host But who does the work to ensure that the doc comments match up with the actual code? Also, it seems the doc comments RFC left defining function arguments as "future work"... | 09:09:48 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host* But who does the work to ensure that the doc comments match up with the actual code? Also, it seems the doc comments RFC left defining how function arguments ought to be recorded in doc strings as "future work"... | 09:10:32 | |
| * But who does the work to ensure that the doc comments match up with the actual code? Also, it seems the doc comments RFC left defining how function arguments ought to be recorded in doc strings as "future work"...wouldn't that also be necessary for stuff like noogle, or auto-gen docs? | 09:10:51 | |
| bzm3r: > Also, it seems the doc comments RFC left defining how function arguments ought to be recorded in doc strings as "future work"... I think this is might be common missunderstanding: We specified it for "lambda-formals".
| 09:12:43 | |
| * bzm3r: > Also, it seems the doc comments RFC left defining how function arguments ought to be recorded in doc strings as "future work"... I think this might be common missunderstanding: We specified it for "lambda-formals".
| 09:12:52 | |
| bzm3r: The rfc is not yet fully implemented. What currently works is all the stuff that you can right now see in noogle. | 09:14:36 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.hostAh, I think I see. Okay, so this is presumably also where we put type information? (does "lambda formal" have a more specific meaning outside of nix/nixos?) | 09:14:40 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host* Ah, I think I see. Okay, so this is presumably also where we put type information too then? (does "lambda formal" have a more specific meaning outside of nix/nixos?) | 09:15:00 | |
| bzm3r: You could also verify if your comments show up in noogle. If you point noogle's "nixpkgs-master" flake input to your fork of nixpkgs and then execute | 09:21:21 | |
| * bzm3r: You could also verify if your comments show up in noogle. If you point noogle's "nixpkgs-master" flake input to your fork of nixpkgs and then execute
| 09:22:32 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.orgI figured out the first: the highlighting library also provides aliases for languages, and shellsession is an alias for shell: https://github.com/highlightjs/highlight.js/blob/main/src/languages/shell.js#L13-L16This isn't documented in the docs for that library. I have no idea why the highlighting wasn't working before, but now it is, so everything's good | 20:12:07 | |
| 14 Jan 2024 | ||
I believe I came across some research yesterday---I have a vague memory that it might have been work done as part of the nixos-render-docs project---collating a list of function documentation styles currently used by the manuals. | 05:54:11 | |
| Might someone know what I am referring to, or something similar to this? I am having trouble finding it at the moment. | 05:54:31 | |
* I believe I came across some research yesterday collating a list of function documentation styles currently used by the manuals. I have a vague memory that it might have been work done as part of the nixos-render-docs project. | 06:04:21 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.hosthttps://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/168 | 06:33:32 | |
| * Might someone know what I am referring to, or of something similar to this? I am having trouble finding it at the moment. | 07:25:56 | |
| hej, I was Release Editor for 23.05 and 23.11; I guess it'd have some feedback to the editorial process; how do you all collaborate? are there meetings I could attend to give my thoughts? best lennart / riotbib on nixpkgs | 14:52:30 | |
| 15:07:29 | ||
| Is there any tutorial how to develop on
I am not super familiar with the implied workflow python development on that package. I'm Calling Results in an error
| 17:32:45 | |
| * Is there any tutorial how to develop on
I am not super familiar with the implied workflow python development on that package. I'm Calling Results in an error
| 17:33:41 | |
| * Is there any tutorial how to develop on
I am not super familiar with the implied workflow python development on that package. I'm Calling Results in an error
Any ideas ? | 17:34:23 | |
In reply to @lennart:0520.chWe have meetings! Every monday and thursday, details on time+timezone and links are here: https://github.com/NixOS/nix.dev/tree/master/maintainers#team-meetings (links are also in this matrix room's description) Outside meetings, I think anything else happens either in writing in this room or through PR reviews (at least that's what I'm aware of) | 20:19:13 | |
| (btw - I added a point to next meeting's agenda that came from a discussion here, and also links of PRs ready for merging. I can't attend on mondays, but hope you can look at the PRs at least!) | 20:21:57 | |
In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.hostJust spent some time looking into this. You need to run python -m pytest instead of pytest because of this: https://docs.pytest.org/en/7.4.x/explanation/pythonpath.html#invoking-pytest-versus-python-m-pytest | 20:54:42 | |
| 15 Jan 2024 | ||
| Update: the Nix doctester is still being worked on at four hours per week. | 15:11:33 | |
| I've made the changes to https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/277534 that we talked about during today's docs meeting, hopefully mergeable at this point when CI is done. | 16:32:27 | |
| Redacted or Malformed Event | 19:15:50 | |
| * The rebuild impact of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/275701 (the patch by cwp that fixes Python binary wrappers) is pretty huge. About half of everything depended upon in the devenv examples must be recompiled. Everything works so far, but I can imagine pushing that PR through into nixpkgs master is going to take a good long while due to its impact. I think maybe we should think about using our own makeWrapper in devenv itself that produces fixed Python binary wrappers in the meantime? Basically just kinda copy over the stuff from python/wrapper.nix and use it instead of the stuff in nixpkgs? | 19:16:37 | |