Skip to content

Recommend the use of MARKDOWN_V2 in telegram.ext.Defaults #3363

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Recommend the use of MARKDOWN_V2 in telegram.ext.Defaults #3363

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Viicos
Copy link
Contributor

@Viicos Viicos commented Nov 14, 2022

Or maybe you'd like to keep both MARKDOWN and MARKDOWN_V2, even if MARKDOWN is a legacy mode

harshil21
harshil21 reviewed Nov 14, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@harshil21 harshil21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was going to say that this doc follows the Telegram Bot API docs, but they seemed to have changed their wording of all parse_mode references..

anyway I would add all 3 parse_modes in the docstring, but let's see what others think first.

@Bibo-Joshi
Copy link
Member

Given that all parse_mode docstrings are outdated, the option I like best would be updating all parse_mode docstrings with

Mode for parsing entities. See ParseMode and formatting options for more details.

@Viicos
Copy link
Contributor Author

Viicos commented Nov 14, 2022

Alright then I'll take a look at the other existing parse_mode references and make the necessary edits

@Bibo-Joshi
Copy link
Member

That would be great, @Viicos!

I just double checked our doc-fixes PR #3214 and it seems like @harshil21 already introduced a substitutions thingy for the parse_mode parameter in commit da40605. So it would suffice to update that substitution and use it Defaults as well (and maybe any other missed places). Could you open a new PR against the doc-fixes branch for that? I'll close this PR for now.

@Bibo-Joshi Bibo-Joshi closed this Nov 15, 2022
@Bibo-Joshi
Copy link
Member

PS: I'll try to merge #3214 into master shortly, but will create a new doc-fixes branch that you can base your PR on :)

@Viicos Viicos mentioned this pull request Nov 16, 2022
Merged
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 22, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@harshil21 harshil21 harshil21 left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Viicos @Bibo-Joshi @harshil21