| Message ID | 20181004161852.11673-6-crosa@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Trivial fixes and clean ups | expand |
On 10/04/2018 12:18 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > The line immediate following a ".. code::" block is considered > to contains arguments to the "code directive". The lack of a > new line gives me during at parse time: > > testing.rst:63: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: > maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. > > .. code:: > make check-unit V=1 > > testing.rst:120: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: > maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. > > .. code:: > make check-qtest V=1 > pandoc doesn't complain, but rst.ninjs.org does. What tool did you use to find these? we should formalize a formatting checker for rst files. Actually, we should formalize building our RST docs at all... --js > Let's add the missing newlines, both for consistency and to > avoid the parsing errors. > > Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
On 04/10/2018 17:18, Cleber Rosa wrote: > The line immediate following a ".. code::" block is considered > to contains arguments to the "code directive". The lack of a > new line gives me during at parse time: > > testing.rst:63: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: > maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. > > .. code:: > make check-unit V=1 > > testing.rst:120: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: > maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. > > .. code:: > make check-qtest V=1 > > Let's add the missing newlines, both for consistency and to > avoid the parsing errors. > > Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> > --- > docs/devel/testing.rst | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/devel/testing.rst b/docs/devel/testing.rst > index 727c4019b5..9355ad49f2 100644 > --- a/docs/devel/testing.rst > +++ b/docs/devel/testing.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ variable (which affects memory reclamation and catches invalid pointers better) > and gtester options. If necessary, you can run > > .. code:: > + > make check-unit V=1 > > and copy the actual command line which executes the unit test, then run > @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@ and using gdb on the test is still simple to do: find out the actual command > from the output of > > .. code:: > + > make check-qtest V=1 > > which you can run manually. > Applied Thanks, Laurent
diff --git a/docs/devel/testing.rst b/docs/devel/testing.rst index 727c4019b5..9355ad49f2 100644 --- a/docs/devel/testing.rst +++ b/docs/devel/testing.rst @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ variable (which affects memory reclamation and catches invalid pointers better) and gtester options. If necessary, you can run .. code:: + make check-unit V=1 and copy the actual command line which executes the unit test, then run @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@ and using gdb on the test is still simple to do: find out the actual command from the output of .. code:: + make check-qtest V=1 which you can run manually.
The line immediate following a ".. code::" block is considered to contains arguments to the "code directive". The lack of a new line gives me during at parse time: testing.rst:63: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. .. code:: make check-unit V=1 testing.rst:120: (ERROR/3) Error in "code" directive: maximum 1 argument(s) allowed, 3 supplied. .. code:: make check-qtest V=1 Let's add the missing newlines, both for consistency and to avoid the parsing errors. Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> --- docs/devel/testing.rst | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)