Avoid docutils.nodes.reprunicode #71
Open
+1
−2
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
`docutils.nodes.reprunicode` was until recently just a subclass of `str`. It was removed in this commit: https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/code/9415/ Therefore `path = nodes.reprunicode(path)` just converted a string to a string and can therefore be removed. This is an alternative to fixing `docutils` to an old version (as done in CrossNox#69). Fixes CrossNox#68
This was referenced Oct 15, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
docutils.nodes.reprunicodewas until recently just a subclass ofstr. It was removed in this commit: https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/code/9415/ Thereforepath = nodes.reprunicode(path)just converted a string to a string and can therefore be removed.This is an alternative to fixing
docutilsto an old version (as done in #69).Related discussion on a similar issue with another Sphinx project: https://github.com/orgs/sphinx-doc/discussions/13020#discussioncomment-10930769
Fixes #68