Skip to content
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.

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

Add an option to not use intersphinx references as a fallback #2068

Closed
adamtheturtle opened this issue Oct 7, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #9459
Closed

Add an option to not use intersphinx references as a fallback #2068

adamtheturtle opened this issue Oct 7, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #9459
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@adamtheturtle
Copy link

That intersphinx references are used as fallbacks if a reference is not available in a project recently caused us a problem.

We have a site (latest) which is the latest build of master.

We use intersphinx as follows, so we can link to the latest documentation in some sections:

intersphinx_mapping = {
    'latest': ('http://doc-dev.clusterhq.com/', None),
}
Make sure to follow the :ref:`latest documentation <latest:release-process>` when doing a release.

Our docs included a label (.. foo:) so this reference was available on latest.
This label was removed on a branch, along with one of the two references to this label.
In this case we would expect that building the branch would fail, as there is a reference to a label which doesn't exist.
Unexpectedly, the branch built successfully, because the label was found in latest as a fall back when it was not found locally. The branch was merged, and then later, when latest changed (because master was built again) builds stopped working because there was a reference to a non-existent label.

It would be good to have an option to not fall back, maybe something like nitpicky.

nijel added a commit to nijel/sphinx that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2021
Strictly using prefix for intersphinx links gives a better control on
external links - only links explicitely declared will point to the
external documentation.

Fixes sphinx-doc#2068
@nijel
Copy link
Contributor

nijel commented Mar 11, 2021

The initial PR adding this is #8981

@tk0miya tk0miya added this to the 4.0.0 milestone Mar 13, 2021
@tk0miya tk0miya added the type:proposal a feature suggestion label Mar 13, 2021
nijel added a commit to nijel/sphinx that referenced this issue Mar 13, 2021
Strictly using prefix for intersphinx links gives a better control on
external links - only links explicitely declared will point to the
external documentation.

Fixes sphinx-doc#2068
@tk0miya tk0miya modified the milestones: 4.0.0, 4.1.0 Apr 8, 2021
nijel added a commit to nijel/sphinx that referenced this issue Jun 8, 2021
Strictly using prefix for intersphinx links gives a better control on
external links - only links explicitely declared will point to the
external documentation.

Fixes sphinx-doc#2068
@tk0miya tk0miya modified the milestones: 4.1.0, 4.2.0 Jul 10, 2021
jakobandersen added a commit to jakobandersen/sphinx that referenced this issue Jul 16, 2021
@astrojuanlu
Copy link
Contributor

I know that I'm 6 years late and apparently clusterhq is no more, but for future reference, I just wanted to say that it looks weird to me to have an intersphinx mapping to your own online documentation. In principle I guess that this should not be needed, but I'd be keen to learn more in case I'm missing anything.

@adamtheturtle
Copy link
Author

@astrojuanlu I believe that it was so that we could keep old versions of the documentation alive in <url>/<old-version> and still link to the "latest" documentation from those old versions where necessary.

@tk0miya tk0miya modified the milestones: 4.2.0, 4.3.0 Sep 12, 2021
jakobandersen added a commit to jakobandersen/sphinx that referenced this issue Sep 18, 2021
jakobandersen added a commit to jakobandersen/sphinx that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2021
jakobandersen added a commit to jakobandersen/sphinx that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2021
jakobandersen added a commit to jakobandersen/sphinx that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 1, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
5 participants