Integrate markdown-magic to auto-generate TOC and contributors #1159
Conversation
Update test phrasing according to recent changes in parsing logic.
Limit responsibility of "pre-publish" script to simply validate the project's `History.md` file (by verifying an entry for the current release). Define a separate script for history generation. Separating the workflow in this way allows for manual modification of the release notes.
Simply expose an option named `xml` that enables XML parsing via htmlparser2 with the ability to specify additional options for that parser.
This flag is used to control parsing behavior internally, but it is not intended for use by consumers. Prefix the name with an underscore in order to discourage users from relying on it.
Incorporate recent feedback from consumers who have experimented with the version 1.0 release candidate.
Breaking change: Invalid selectors now throw Errors, not SyntaxErrors.
Since enabling the `withDomLvl1` parsing option, nodes cannot be created with an object literal. Create new text nodes using the `evaluate` function to ensure they expose the correct attributes.
… case to the switch in the prop function, which wraps a clone of in a container element, and sets to that container's HTML (#945)
This includes code coverage reports as generated by the command `make test-cov`.
* Correct typo in git hook configuration * Reformat package manifest to satisfy linter
Right now both of these need to be manually updated.
|
@jugglinmike Any issues with this? It helps with keeping the readme up to date and allows us to get more creative with what we include. We could even embed the jsdoc in the readme through https://github.com/bradtaylorsf/markdown-magic-jsdoc, even though that might be a bit heavy. |
|
My inclination is to go the other way and remove the contributor list. At that point, the readme would be manageable enough to not really need a table of contents. I'm willing to compromise on what is admittedly a more subjective issue, but I'm not comfortable incorporating a process that is not trivially repeatable. Our release cadence has slowed down to the point where I expect to forget any manual steps, so I'd much prefer to nail those details down in the Makefile. Also, note that the It's strange that the binary exits with 0 in this case. But in any event, it looks like we need to use the When I run this locally, though, the utility creates a contributor list which differs significantly than what is currently defined on the branch. Because Ihad to modify the GNU Make target, it's possible that my invocation differs from yours in some other significant way. Could you verify the effect of the following command? |
|
I've update the command, only difference is that one contributor was added. Sorry for missing this, and weird that you get different output.
Totally fine with that. Just wanted to add a way to automatically generate it as it hasn't been updated for quite some time. We could also leave the section empty and generate it together with the documentation (which also includes the readme). Nothing would be shown in the repo, but we would still mention contributors on the website. |
|
Please consider https://github.com/gajus/gitdown. Here is an example project using gitdown: https://github.com/gajus/slonik |
|
I removed the Contributors section from the readme as an alternative to this PR. |
Right now both of these need to be manually updated.