Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs: Add support for relative paths in automarkup

[Nícolas F. R. A. Prado]

Em Thu Feb 4, 2021 at 8:28 PM -03, Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
>
> Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > As Jon previously noted [1], it would be nice if automarkup supported relative
> > paths as well when cross-referencing to other documents. This adds the support
> > for it, and documents it.
> >
> > Jon, after applying this, 43bc3ed73639 ("docs: dt: Use full path to enable
> > cross-reference") could be reverted without the link stopping to work.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20201130142404.6ef6689e@xxxxxxx/
> >
> > Nícolas F. R. A. Prado (2):
> >   docs: Enable usage of relative paths to docs on automarkup
> >   docs: Document cross-referencing using relative path
> >
> >  Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  Documentation/sphinx/automarkup.py |  7 +++++--
> >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> So I finally got around to playing with this set. One thing I found is
> that some of the references that were being caught before were not
> now... after far too much time, I figured out that the problem was
> references to .txt files, of which we have quite a few in the docs.
> admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt in particular is quite popular.
> Before this change, those were being turned into xrefs, afterward not.

Hm, but what is actually being linked to is the .rst of same name,
admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst. Both when adding a file to the Sphinx's
index, as well as when cross-referencing, the file name is used without the
extension, because the .rst extension is implied.

In the case of admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt though, the .rst file includes
the .txt file, so it actually makes sense to cross-reference to the .rst when
writing the path to the .txt. But in the case of
core-api/refcount-vs-atomic.rst, for example, where there is a reference to
memory-barriers.txt, which is a file with no .rst counterpart, it will
fail to cross-reference. At the moment that's harmless, but it will become a
problem after we enable warnings.

>
> To address that, I applied this little tweak:
>
> -RE_doc = re.compile(r'(\bDocumentation/)?((\.\./)*[\w\-/]+)\.rst')
> +RE_doc = re.compile(r'(\bDocumentation/)?((\.\./)*[\w\-/]+)\.(rst|txt)')
>
> That seems to make things work properly again.
>
> While tracking this down I put in a print for failing cross references,
> and noted that we have quite a few; it's a useful way to see where the
> stale references are. Maybe I'll try to hack together something to make
> those stand out so we can fix them.

That was already on my backlog, so I could probably do it in the next few days
:) (if you don't get to it first, of course).

Thanks,
Nícolas