Page MenuHomeSoftware Heritage

docs: Add new modules swh.auth and swh.counters
ClosedPublic

Authored by ardumont on Mar 25 2021, 10:11 AM.

Details

Summary

Adding the missing swh.auth[django] for the deposit build so now it's fine.
At the same time, add also the reference to the new swh.counters.

This should fix the build, it did locally.

Related to T3172

Test Plan

tox -e sphinx is happy

Diff Detail

Repository
rDDOC Development documentation
Branch
master
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 20199
Build 31350: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

The publish failure uses the 'sphinx' one though... [1]
I'll check now

Reproduced locally now.
It's better to try and fix things heh.

[1] I did not try that one as i thought (without checking d'oh) it would publish...

make distclean; tox -e sphinx is now happy

ardumont edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
vlorentz added a subscriber: vlorentz.

please also update docs/index.rst

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 25 2021, 11:12 AM

and btw, the right fix for that error would be to depend on swh.deposit[swh-server]; but it's good to also include these missing modules

i'll do both, thx for the heads up.

  • Update docs/index.rst
  • tox still happy
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 25 2021, 11:53 AM
vlorentz added inline comments.
docs/index.rst
62

"Next generation" is a temporary state ;)

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 25 2021, 11:54 AM
docs/index.rst
62

lol, i just copy/pasted the readme over there.

Update for tox -e sphinx-dev target

Sorry to be annoying, but "SWH object counters scaffolding" isn't a great description, because it sounds like "object counter scaffholding for SWH".

What about "service providing efficient estimates of the number of objects in the SWH archive, using Redis's Hyperloglog"?

Reword swh.counters description

It's not annoying when it's constructive (it often is ;).

The only annoyance i get with this (independently from your remark) is that we are not
really dry. We are duplicating information outside of the concerned repository. But I
don't have anything better so, there adapted.

The only annoyance i get with this (independently from your remark) is that we are not
really dry. We are duplicating information outside of the concerned repository.

This is documentation. It can't be both didactic and DRY.

And by definition, a table of content is the opposite of DRY.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 25 2021, 2:50 PM