Odoc compatibility #46
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
"Fewer conversions between Names and strings"
"Overhaul of module-type-of and shadowing"
"Remove core types and exceptions from identifiers"
Several changes: - Entries are now defined in the `odoc_index` library, - Entries can have new kinds (pages, source, ...) - Indexes have the form of "skeletons of entries", that can be folded. - Indexes can be created by odoc with the `odoc compile-index` command, and then consumed by sherlodoc. These changes come from: - ocaml/odoc#1228 - ocaml/odoc#1232 - ocaml/odoc#1233 - ocaml/odoc#1244 - ocaml/odoc#1250 - ocaml/odoc#1251
This function was used only in sherlodoc, it makes sense to be here.
In particular, odoc 3 fixed a bug where "hidden" modules were still indexed. This is why e.g. `Base.StringLabels` is removed from the tests output.
Odoc 3 also fixed the way extension constructor are handled. Before, a "type" would be added, with ID the first constructor, making things rather strange from the user eg as in the (now fixed) example: ``` type Main.MyExtension ``` displayed for ``` type extensible_type += MyExtension ``` This is now fixed. A test for the definition of the extensible type is also added.
| @@ -105,10 +105,10 @@ | |||
| 115 val Base.List.ignore_m : 'a t -> unit t | |||
| 116 val Base.List.drop : 'a t -> int -> 'a t | |||
| 116 val Base.List.take : 'a t -> int -> 'a t | |||
| 125 mod Base.ListLabels | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thats weird, why did this show up before ? Its not part of Base. Is the Stdlib included in Base ?
|
I had two separate ideas to improve the interaction between sherlodoc and odoc :
Option 1 is more work but will have better results, option 2 is easier but compatibility might still break from time to time. I think option 2 should be done no matter what because its very easy, and afterwards option 1 can be done if its needed and there is time for it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR makes sherlodoc compatible with odoc's ocaml/odoc#1251 (which hopefully makes it to master soon 🤞)
In fact, in addition to all the sidebar work (that is obviously making breaking changes on sherlodoc's side) it turns out that changes seemingly unrelated to indexing also broke sherlodoc:
Some bugfixes also "broke" (or more precisely, "fixed") some of sherlodoc's tests.
It would be great to find a solution to have sherlodoc and odoc's interaction more stable!
(This supersedes #42)