GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — doc: sort bottom-of-file markdown links by sam-github · Pull Request #24679 · nodejs/node Conversation
Contributor
Reapply #12726 It would be nice to have the sort check applied as part of doc testing, Checklist
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Collaborator
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
4 tasks
4 tasks
This was referenced
Contributor
Author
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
vsemozhetbyt
approved these changes
|
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
We still have one inconsistency. In ASCII the order is: [`DeflateRaw`]: #zlib_class_zlib_deflateraw [`Deflate`]: #zlib_class_zlib_deflate However, as for the first symbol, some documents have upper case letters before backticks (i.e. [Using `options.selectPadding()`]: #http2_using_options_selectpadding [`'checkContinue'`]: #http2_event_checkcontinue some documents have upper case letters after backtick (i.e. not consistently): [`strict mode`]: #assert_strict_mode [Abstract Equality Comparison]: https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-abstract-equality-comparison |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@vsemozhetbyt I didn't try to fix all inconsistencies, my goal was to make it locally consistent. There was a fair number of unsorted-by-any-algorithm positions. Maybe that's a mistake. I would personally prefer to have strict ordering according to the default "C"/Posix locale -- which is ASCII ordering. Entirely ASCII makes it much faster to pass the entire block through programmer's editor's sort command, but IIRC from my first crack at this, existing usage had the backtick docs before all others, so I kept that in order to minimize churn. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Btw, I'm willing to go through and resort all the open sorting PRs, time consuming though it is, but only if I know they will be rubber stamped. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
If you mean the backport PRs, they still have no reviews, but I plan to review them. And I usually compare automatically-sorted-in-editor lists with your variants when the diff is big) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Should I wait for resorting in the backporting PRs? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Should you wait? I don't know. If you are OK with this one landing, then yes, go ahead and review the others so they can all land at about the same time. None of them are backports in the sense that I didn't use git to make them, there are too many differences between branches. I went through and sorted I think the current set of PRs makes all the files locally consistent, which isn't just cosmetic. Its sort of a flag day... any commits landing on master after this that touch the markdown refs will have trouble cherry-picking back to the branches, unless those branches are already sorted. It would be really nice to have a markdown test tool that enforced ordering. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I am OK with this one landing as is. I will try to review the others tomorrow. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
It seems this need rebasing to run CI. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
cfab420 to
e208a16
Compare
|
PTAL |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
CI-lite: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/1709/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Node.js Collaborators, please, add 👍 here if you approve fast-tracking. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I'd like to fast-track to avoid conflicts. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Reapply nodejs#12726 It would be nice to have the sort check applied as part of doc testing, but this change doesn't implement that.
e208a16 to
f34fede
Compare
Backport of #24679 PR-URL: #24682 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]>
Backport-PR-URL: nodejs#24680 PR-URL: nodejs#24679 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Backport-PR-URL: #24680 PR-URL: #24679 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reapply #12726 It would be nice to have the sort check applied as part of doc testing, but this change doesn't implement that. Backport-PR-URL: #24681 PR-URL: #24679 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reapply #12726 It would be nice to have the sort check applied as part of doc testing, but this change doesn't implement that. Backport-PR-URL: #24681 PR-URL: #24679 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reapply nodejs#12726 It would be nice to have the sort check applied as part of doc testing, but this change doesn't implement that. PR-URL: nodejs#24679 Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.