Skip to content

fix #1822 regression from 1.3b3 #1828

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
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fix #1822 regression from 1.3b3 #1828

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jschueller
Copy link
Contributor

it reverts part of 21b8384 that was a backward-incompatible attempt to fix #1061.
Maybe this issue should be solved by using a backward-compatible :imported: flag as suggested by @shimizukawa, see #1822 for details

@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Apr 2, 2015

👍 By the way there is already an option to ModuleDocumenter called "imported-members", which when set to True also works around this--it forces documenter.check_module() to return True. The problem is that there's no obvious place for autosummary to pass that option to autodoc.

I worked around the backward-incompatible change that this fixes in my subclass of Autosummary like this: https://github.com/astropy/astropy-helpers/pull/148/files#diff-c95430c65faa667beb1feea7abfb3fd6R188

A better longterm solution, as suggested, would be to add an equivalent flag directly to Autosummary as well.

@jschueller jschueller changed the title try to fix #1822 fix #1822 regression from 1.3b3 Apr 7, 2015
@christianbrodbeck
Copy link

I would be happy with this fix, are there reasons it is held up?

@shimizukawa shimizukawa self-assigned this Jun 1, 2015
@shimizukawa
Copy link
Member

Sorry for long time holding (I have no time past 3 months..).
I'll take a look in a week.

@shoyer
Copy link

shoyer commented Jun 9, 2015

Not sure how much it helps to pile on, but IMO this is a major regression and it would be prudent to get a release with a fix out ASAP. This broke API docs for (at least) scikit-learn, pandas, xray and dask. The first two of those projects are foundational projects for the scientific Python stack.

@jschueller
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shimizukawa, @Eric89GXL proposed a fix for this issue in #1892, maybe it is better, what do you think ?

@larsoner
Copy link
Contributor

I tried to make the code accurately reflect what the documentation says it will do. I don't think this change does it as well as #1892 -- it does fix the problem, I remember having it as my first-order solution, but I can't remember the details of why #1892 seemed better. I think whatever rationale the person had for adding those two lines (that are deleted in this PR) made sense, but they needed the additional conditional to fit with the docs. And what the docs say make sense.

@jschueller
Copy link
Contributor Author

agreed, refer to #1892

@jschueller jschueller closed this Jun 11, 2015
shimizukawa added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2015
FIX: Only check if members is True. closes #1822, refs #1891, #1828, #1061, #1663
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 26, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

autosummary document imported functions
7 participants