Skip to content

Infra: generate machine-readable PEP index #2475

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

Merged
hugovk merged 5 commits into from
Apr 1, 2022
Merged

Infra: generate machine-readable PEP index #2475

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
36b2a5f
Infra: generate machine-readable PEP index
hugovk Mar 27, 2022
c24b85b
Don't create a temp list
hugovk Mar 29, 2022
30d0d6c
Infra: Include more headers in peps.json
hugovk Mar 29, 2022
089826a
Infra: Move from /peps.rss to /api/peps.json
hugovk Mar 29, 2022
5f88ed5
Infra: Build JSON from dict, with PEP number as key, instead of list
hugovk Mar 30, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Infra: Build JSON from dict, with PEP number as key, instead of list
  • Loading branch information
@hugovk
hugovk committed Mar 30, 2022
commit 5f88ed5fe685107537c84051f71a3b563315c863
9 changes: 4 additions & 5 deletions pep_sphinx_extensions/pep_zero_generator/pep_index_generator.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -32,9 +32,8 @@


def create_pep_json(peps: list[parser.PEP]) -> str:
pep_list = [
{
"number": pep.number,
pep_dict = {
pep.number: {
"title": pep.title,
"authors": ", ".join(pep.authors.nick for pep.authors in pep.authors),

@TeamSpen210 TeamSpen210 Mar 30, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be better to make this an array of nicks, so users don't need to split the string again?

@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach Mar 31, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Currently, all of the fields are strings (or null), and match the literal value of the headers (minus cleaned-up whitespace). if we're going to do this, it would be inconsistent if we didn't process the other headers as well into more structured formats, which would be a good idea but better left to a future PR. With #2484 , tools can rely on each of the headers to match a certain format, so they are easier and more consistent to work with as strings and can be split with just .split(","), without having to worry much about edge cases.

As mentioned above,

In the future, if there's any interest, we could actually parse the fields into more structured formats, especially once my PRs land that fully validate their format for much easier and trouble-free internal and external use.

"discussions_to": pep.discussions_to,
Expand All @@ -50,8 +49,8 @@ def create_pep_json(peps: list[parser.PEP]) -> str:
"url": f"https://peps.python.org/pep-{pep.number:0>4}/",
}
for pep in sorted(peps)
]
return json.dumps(pep_list, indent=0)
}
return json.dumps(pep_dict, indent=1)


def create_pep_zero(app: Sphinx, env: BuildEnvironment, docnames: list[str]) -> None:
Expand Down