-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bump DocumenterCitations
to v1.0.0
#2605
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This now furthermore includes the following changes:
Known problems:
If somebody finds more broken bib entries in the bibliography overview, please lmk. A preview should be available at https://docs.oscar-system.org/previews/PR2605/references/ once CI finishes. Pinging @fingolfin as he motivated the above changes. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2605 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.39% 80.24% -0.16%
==========================================
Files 456 462 +6
Lines 65235 65443 +208
==========================================
+ Hits 52447 52514 +67
- Misses 12788 12929 +141 |
Restarted CI to see if 1.0.1/1.0.2 fix the year issue. |
Documenter 1.0 has been released -- with the change in this PR, nothing blocks the CI from using Documenter 1.0, and so it does, and so things fail. I think for now we should modify |
Thanks @benlorenz! This check and duplication can be removed again once we change the Documenter compat to 1.0.0. |
The year issue is fixed. OEIS and Stacks are still broken. Furthermore, |
Yeah there is a reason why preprints were marked as |
If I remember correctly, |
Is there a chance we can get |
What is the status of this @lgoettgens ? I need the changes by @benlorenz that make the documenter helpers work with newer versions. Should I move this to a separate PR? |
If you need it urgently, it would be best to move it to a separate PR. I will be on vacation the next week and will only find time to work on this afterwards. |
Just as a note relevant to the
|
Also |
Thanks! I will look into this in the upcoming week. |
2c05eba
to
970c1b4
Compare
even if they are never cited anywhere
as advised by DocumenterCitations docs. Some escapes didn't work as expected before.
970c1b4
to
429e611
Compare
- Add some missing DOIs I found while researching other stuff - Format HAL preprints - Remove weirdly printed `\url` - Change `pdf =` to `url =` to get it included in docs - Fix typo in title of `DES93` - Replace dead url of `OM78`
@@ -25,14 +26,15 @@ @Article{ABS97 | |||
} | |||
|
|||
@Article{AG10, | |||
author = {Arzhantsev, Ivan V. and Ga\v{i}fullin, Sergei A.}, | |||
author = {Arzhantsev, Ivan V. and Gaĭfullin, Sergey A.}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change seems unrelated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some umlaut/accent escaped were parsed/printed badly. As DocumenterCitations.jl now supports Unicode, my easiest solution was to change all escapes to Unicode symbols. I cannot remember (and didn't check) which exactly had to be changed but just redid all of them.
To ease the review, all of these changes are in well-named commits.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My concern is that this makes it even harder to extract things from the .bib file to use in LaTeX. Maybe not for those using biber, but there are still people using bibtex...
It's not a major problem for me, but it seems a bit gratuitous. Anyway, in the end, I can live with it, but I wonder whether @thofma or @fieker can...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Each bib system has its own quirks, so one needs to adapt the bib file for each.
The machinery available in julia cannot parse generic Latex, but only applies some limited regex replacement. If we decide against Unicode, now and for each future reference that first needs a new Unicode symbol, we need to PR a change to the DocumenterCitations regex list and wait for a release there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No objection
e2b7ec6
to
04f6578
Compare
Unfortunately, non-person authors ("corporate names") are currently not supported by The last commit here monkey-patches some functions from DocumenterCitations.jl to use different printing for |
I also added some guidelines on how DocumenterCitations.jl expects the |
@@ -1789,14 +1728,16 @@ @Article{Tay87 | |||
volume = {3}, | |||
pages = {76--85}, | |||
year = {1987}, | |||
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09155} | |||
eprint = {2201.09155}, | |||
primaryclass = {math.GR} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I can tell, the primaryclass
is only printed for a very bib entries, like this one; for most other arxiv ones it is not. Presumably it is only printed for those using the eprint
field? I guess this is an artifact of the "hack" used to abuse @article
for use in eprints. I wonder why they are not simply implement @Misc
suitably?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we want to have them visible for arxiv only papers as well, it needs to go into the journal field. I can adapt that tomorrow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is not important from my POV, I was just at first confused why it appeared for some papers but not others.
so, don't waste your time on this :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok :)
As 1.3 will probably break some internals we currently rely on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am mostly happy with this now, thank you very much for the effort you put into this, @lgoettgens !
One minor question: the sorting is a bit weird. It seems to be based on the key, but case insensitive? Because it puts ZS98
before Zie95
? If it easily possible to make the sorting case sensitive would be great. If it takes a lot of effort, forget it or put it on the TODO stack somewhere far from the top.
Nothing I could manage to get working in roughly 20 minutes -> maybe investigate some time way later. |
(Follow-up to #2598 being broken somehow)
DocumenterCitations (the package that we use for references in the documentation) has received a major update including some breaking changes and a lot of new fancy stuff.
I will first try to get it to work exactly like it does currently with the old version and then try to nice things up.
Preview at https://docs.oscar-system.org/previews/PR2605/references/