-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #61 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.84% 97.84%
=======================================
Files 32 32
Lines 1251 1251
=======================================
Hits 1224 1224
Misses 27 27
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
If I build this locally, I get issues with not existing file and not registered source parsers. @mibaumgartner do you have any experience on this? Otherwise I need to investigate tomorrow. |
No idea (at least without further investigation) 🙈 |
# Conflicts: # README.md # docs/requirements.txt # docs/source/conf.py # docs/source/images/logo/rising_logo.png # docs/source/images/logo/rising_logo.svg # docs/source/index.rst
Currently I got it working without apidoc (with apidoc it looks weird) and the following needs to be done:
|
With this state we can build docs looking like this: However, There are still some missing features:
However: I propose to add these things in a follow-up PR, since that way we can get the current docs already running :) Thoughts @mibaumgartner ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good 👍 I think we should start to populate the other features as soon as possible (maybe later today) and use a different PR 👍
Short Description
Please give a short summary of the main points of this PR
PR Checklist
PR Implementer
This is a small checklist for the implementation details of this PR.
If you submit a PR, please look at these points (don't worry about the
RisingTeam
and
Reviewer
workflows, the only purpose of those is to have a compact view ofthe steps)
If there are any questions regarding code style or other conventions check out our
summary.
__all__
sections and__init__
RisingTeam
RisingTeam workflow
Please make sure to communicate the current status of the pr.)
closes #IssueNumber
at the bottom ifnot already in description)
Reviewer
Reviewer workflow
rising
design conventions?Can you think of critical points which should be covered in an additional test?