Skip to content

[MNT]: Write a bot to post doc build issues #22176

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

Closed
timhoffm opened this issue Jan 9, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #24731
Closed

[MNT]: Write a bot to post doc build issues #22176

timhoffm opened this issue Jan 9, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #24731
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@timhoffm
Copy link
Member

timhoffm commented Jan 9, 2022

Summary

When doc builds fail, most of the time it's due to ReST formatting or referencing issues.

Most issues have a form similar to

/home/circleci/project/doc/api/next_api_changes/behavior/22135-JSS3.rst:3: WARNING: py:obj reference target not found: Figure._localaxes

My standard way to find out the error is:

  • Open CircleCI
  • Download the build log
  • Search for "WARNING"

This is cumbersome and not very discoverable for new contributors.

Proposed fix

It would be great to have a bot post these warnings if CicleCI fails. I assume that would cover 95% of doc build failures and point contributors (new and experienced) to the problem so that they can solve it faster.

@story645
Copy link
Member

story645 commented Dec 2, 2022

is this closed by #23868?

@ksunden
Copy link
Member

ksunden commented Dec 2, 2022

As it turns out, the sections added in #23868 don't actually run on failed doc builds, rendering them ineffective. (They do run on successful doc builds, not that it says anything other than "no errors or warnings")

See, for example this run for which the doc build failed, but no such separate job for pulling out the errors/warnings.

I believe @QuLogic is planning on implementing a more full solution in the near term, including a bot-generated comment on the PR (correct me if I'm wrong/misremembering a conversation)

@QuLogic QuLogic self-assigned this Dec 2, 2022
@QuLogic
Copy link
Member

QuLogic commented Dec 3, 2022

Yes, and thinking about it since then, I think I have a simpler (in some ways) solution than we discussed, but I haven't fully tested it out yet.

@oscargus
Copy link
Member

oscargus commented Dec 3, 2022

Agreed that they do not solve it. Not really clear why it is not executed though...

Just want to point out that it would also be good if a solution that writes back a GH comment also takes any deprecations into account. That part of the code actually seems to work as it should...

@oscargus
Copy link
Member

oscargus commented Dec 3, 2022

I think I figured out the issue...

@QuLogic QuLogic reopened this Dec 15, 2022
@QuLogic QuLogic added this to the v3.7.0 milestone Dec 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants