On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:12:31PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 29/04/10 15:06, Anders Logg wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 04:02:05PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 29 April 2010 15:55, Garth N. Wells<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>On 29/04/10 14:54, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On 29 April 2010 15:44, Anders Logg<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:43:09PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On 29 April 2010 15:15, Garth N. Wells<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>On 28/04/10 17:26, Anders Logg wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:05:19PM +0200, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>On 28 April 2010 11:59, Garth N. Wells<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 27/04/10 13:52, Kristian Oelgaard wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>On 27 April 2010 14:18, Anders Logg<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Any ideas on how to keep the code in the documentation and the > >>>>>>actual > >>>>>>>>>>>>demos in sync? Should we have a script that copies all the source > >>>>>>>>>>>>files? Or should we do the opposite: extract the demos from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>documentation? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Good question, initially I thought copying from DOLFIN to > >>>>>>documentation > >>>>>>>>>>>was the way to go, but on second thought the other way around > >>>>>>might be > >>>>>>>>>>>better. > >>>>>>>>>>>The reason is that if the demos break, then they will be fixed > >>>>>>in the > >>>>>>>>>>>documentation which makes is more likely that the accompanying text > >>>>>>>>>>>(and > >>>>>>>>>>>code snippets) will also be corrected. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>We'll usually have the source code for a demo broken into pieces > >>>>>>in the > >>>>>>>>>>documentation with an explanation for each part of the code > >>>>>>(rather than > >>>>>>>>>>one > >>>>>>>>>>big chunk), so how would this work with syncing to the actual > >>>>>>demo code? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I think the entire main.cpp file (and UFL ) should be available for > >>>>>>>>>download as it is now. > >>>>>>>>>Then, if a demo breaks one will have to manually modify the code > >>>>>>snippets > >>>>>>>>>and the text. > >>>>>>>>>(and of course the code in main.cpp and the UFL file if appropriate) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Shouldn't it be possible to write a script that extracts the pieces > >>>>>>>>and patches them together? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Possible, but someone needs to do it and figure out a syntax do > >>>>>>indicate > >>>>>>>what line to extract. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>How about this: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>All the code for a particular demo is in main.cpp as it is now, which > >>>>>>we will use to test against DOLFIN and make available for download in > >>>>>>the documentation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The script should then look for all .. code-block:: directives in > >>>>>>the documentation and check if the code is present in main.cpp. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The code block presented in the documentation then has to be an exact > >>>>>>copy of what is in main.cpp and we don't need to worry about the > >>>>>>order or if all pieces of code match up to the entire main.cpp file. > >>>>> > >>>>>Should main.cpp be in DOLFIN or should it be part of the > >>>>>documentation? > >>>> > >>>>It is easier if we make it part of the documentation since Sphinx will > >>>>copy files that are available for download to the build/_downloads > >>>>directory when building the documentation. Then it is also more > >>>>naturally to test the demos against DOLFIN before building the > >>>>documentation. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Agree. > >>> > >>>Should we wait until we flesh out the documentation for Poisson (and maybe > >>>another demo) and then move the demos from dolfin-main to fenics-doc? > >> > >>Yes, let's stick to the two demos we have now (Cahn-Hilliard and > >>Poisson) and get them running for both C++ and Python, set up the > >>scripts to check code blocks, and test against DOLFIN. I think the > >>two demos are different enough to expose most of the problems that > >>we'll encounter. > > > >So we need two scripts? > > > >One script to extract demos from the documentation and into DOLFIN (or > >should we at all bundle the demos with DOLFIN, maybe not). Then only > >the buildbot needs this script. > > > > I wouldn't bundle the demos with DOLFIN. We'll have a 'dolfin-lib' > and a 'fenics-doc' package.
Yes, that sounds good. > What about demos from other FEniCS packages? Don't know. The other relevant demos are the demos for UFL and FFC and that in itself is a bit strange, to have two sets of .ufl files with a pretty large overlap between them. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
