Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 15:49 +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:06 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564232/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only concern I have is that it may slow the transition to the > > > > python 3

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 12:06 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564232/ > > > > > > > > > > The only concern I have is that it may slow the transition to the > > > python 3 version of the jobs, since someone would have to actually > > > fix the

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On 2018-04-25 13:10:42 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > Transitioning jobs is a bit painful because the job definitions and > job templates are defined in separately places. If we don't want > this setting to be controlled from a file within the git repo, I > guess the most expedient

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2018-04-25 11:55:43 -0500: > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564232/ > > > > > > > The only concern I have is that it may slow the transition to the > > python 3 version of the jobs, since someone would have to actually > > fix the

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> >> > >>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564232/ > >> > > > >The only concern I have is that it may slow the transition to the > >python 3 version of the jobs, since someone would have to actually > >fix the warnings before they could add the new job. I'm not sure I > >want to couple the

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On 25/04/18 11:41, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2018-04-25 09:59:13 -0500: I'd be more in favour of changing the zuul job to build with the '-W' flag. To be honest, there is no good reason to not have this flag enabled. I'm not sure that will be a popular

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/564232/ > > > > The only concern I have is that it may slow the transition to the > python 3 version of the jobs, since someone would have to actually > fix the warnings before they could add the new job. I'm not sure I > want to couple the tasks of

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

Excerpts from Sean McGinnis's message of 2018-04-25 09:59:13 -0500: > > > > > > > > > > I'd be more in favour of changing the zuul job to build with the '-W' > > > > > flag. To be honest, there is no good reason to not have this flag > > > > > enabled. I'm not sure that will be a popular opinion

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > > > > > I'd be more in favour of changing the zuul job to build with the '-W' > > > > flag. To be honest, there is no good reason to not have this flag > > > > enabled. I'm not sure that will be a popular opinion though as it may > > > > break some projects' builds (correctly, but still).

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:52:46 +0100 Stephen Finucane wrote: > On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 08:02 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > > > > How can we enable warning_is_error in the gate with the new PTI? It's > > > > easy enough to add the -W flag in tox.ini for local builds,

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 08:02 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > > How can we enable warning_is_error in the gate with the new PTI? It's > > > easy enough to add the -W flag in tox.ini for local builds, but as you > > > say the tox job is never called in the gate. In the gate zuul checks for

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > How can we enable warning_is_error in the gate with the new PTI? It's > > easy enough to add the -W flag in tox.ini for local builds, but as you > > say the tox job is never called in the gate. In the gate zuul checks for > > it in the [build_sphinx] section of setup.cfg: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:36 -0400, Zane Bitter wrote: > On 21/03/18 06:49, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > As noted by Monty in a prior openstack-dev post [2], some projects rely > > on a pbr extension to the 'build_sphinx' setuptools command which can > > automatically run the 'sphinx-apidoc' tool

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On 21/03/18 06:49, Stephen Finucane wrote: As noted by Monty in a prior openstack-dev post [2], some projects rely on a pbr extension to the 'build_sphinx' setuptools command which can automatically run the 'sphinx-apidoc' tool before building docs. This is enabled by configuring some settings

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > tl;dr: You don't _have_ to automate this stuff, but it helps. > > sphinx-apidoc generates stub files containing a whole load of autodoc > directives. As noted above, you can check the output of a sphinx-apidoc > run and you'll see just this. If I were to guess, Cinder simply checked > in

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 07:47 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > > It's not mentioned here, but I discovered today that Cinder is using the > > > sphinx.ext.autodoc module. Is there any issue with using this? > > > > > > > Nope - sphinx-apidoc and the likes use autodoc under the hood. You can

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > It's not mentioned here, but I discovered today that Cinder is using the > > sphinx.ext.autodoc module. Is there any issue with using this? > > > > Nope - sphinx-apidoc and the likes use autodoc under the hood. You can > see this by checking the output in 'contributor/api' or the likes.

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 14:14 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:43:45AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > > > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:43:45AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting > > > them to the new PTI

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

Excerpts from Stephen Finucane's message of 2018-03-23 17:25:42 +: > On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 12:23 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2018-03-23 08:03:22 -0500: > > > On 03/22/2018 05:43 AM, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > > > > > > > That's unfortunate. What we

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 12:23 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2018-03-23 08:03:22 -0500: > > On 03/22/2018 05:43 AM, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > > > > > That's unfortunate. What we really need is a migration path from the > > > 'pbr' way of doing things to

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2018-03-23 08:03:22 -0500: > On 03/22/2018 05:43 AM, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > > > That's unfortunate. What we really need is a migration path from the > > 'pbr' way of doing things to something else. I see three possible > > avenues at this point in

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On 03/22/2018 05:43 AM, Stephen Finucane wrote: On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting them to the new PTI for docs. [snip] I've gone

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On 03/22/2018 04:39 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: That's unfortunate. What we really need is a migration path from the 'pbr' way of doing things to something else. I see three possible avenues at this point in time: 1. Start using 'sphinx.ext.autosummary'. Apparently this can do similar

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > That's unfortunate. What we really need is a migration path from the > > 'pbr' way of doing things to something else. I see three possible > > avenues at this point in time: > > > >1. Start using 'sphinx.ext.autosummary'. Apparently this can do similar > > things to

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

> > > > Unfortunately this will not work to just revert the changes. That may fix > > things locally, but they will not pass in gate by going back to the old way. > > > > Any cases of this will have to actually be updated to not use the > > unsupported > > pieces you point out. But the doc

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:57 -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting > > them to the new PTI for docs. > > > > [snip] > > > > I've gone through and proposed a couple

Re: [openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:49:02AM +, Stephen Finucane wrote: > tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting > them to the new PTI for docs. > > [snip] > > I've gone through and proposed a couple of reverts to fix projects > we've already broken. However, going

[openstack-dev] Following the new PTI for document build, broken local builds

tl;dr: Make sure you stop using pbr's autodoc feature before converting them to the new PTI for docs. There have been a lot of patches converting projects to use the new Project Testing Interface for building docs [1]. Generally, these make the following changes: 1. Move any requirements for