While writing some Markdown documentation for Rails, I came across an
interesting case where trying to link to an instance method at the start
of a line would instead parse as an H1 heading:
```markdown
#response_body=
```
Expected:
```html
<a href=""><code>#response_body=</code></a>
```
Actual:
```html
<h1>response_body=</h1>
```
According to the CommonMark spec:
> At least one space or tab is required between the # characters and the
> heading’s contents, unless the heading is empty. Note that many
> implementations currently do not require the space. However, the space
> was required by the original ATX implementation, and it helps prevent
> things like the following from being parsed as headings:
>
> Example 64
So while some implementations do not follow this requirement, I believe
RDoc should because it makes it easy to write text similar to Example 64
(which was used in the new test) and it also enables automatically
linking to instance methods at the start of a line.
Previously, any sort of "rich" markup for a definition list's label
would cause the Markdown parser to not recognize a definition list:
```ruby
md = <<~md
`one`
: This is a definition
md
doc = RDoc::Markdown.parse(md)
doc # => [doc: [para: "<code>one</code>\n: This is a definition"]]
```
This commit tweaks the grammar for Markdown definition lists so that
labels can include "rich" markup such as bold (`**`), code (```), etc:
```ruby
md = <<~md
`one`
: This is a definition
md
doc = RDoc::Markdown.parse(md)
doc # => [doc: [list: NOTE [item: ["<code>one</code>"]; [para: "This is a definition"]]]]
```
The [PHP Markdown Extra][1] Spec does not seem to specify whether or not
this should be allowed, but it is allowed in the RDoc format:
```ruby
rdoc = <<~rdoc
+code+::
This is a definition
rdoc
doc = RDoc::Markup.parse(rdoc)
doc # => [doc: [list: NOTE [item: ["+code+"]; [para: "This is a definition"]]]]
```
so accepting this change increases the parity of the two formats.
[1]: https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#def-list8f943bbba4
e4e054e3ce used four footnotes
without blank lines. And the ChangeLog generated from that commit
resulted in ``undefined method `parts' for nil`` error.
For now, let a footnote terminated by the next footnote mark.
Also refined the error message when undefined footnote is used.
a7f290130b
This patch makes sure we only load relative code. Hence when coding or
testing rdoc, we'll be sure to always be using the correct code.
Discussion started at https://github.com/ruby/rdoc/pull/817.
Signed-off-by: Ulysse Buonomo <buonomo.ulysse@gmail.com>
aa41bd48eb
Co-authored-by: Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>
It fixed the several bugs that was found after RDoc 6 releasing.
From: SHIBATA Hiroshi <hsbt@ruby-lang.org>
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/trunk@62924 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
* It version introduced did you mean? feature for ri command:
https://github.com/ruby/rdoc/pull/533
* Removed obbsoleted ruby_token.rbb.
[Bug #13990][ruby-core:83180]
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/trunk@60146 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
When you change this to true, you may need to add more tests.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/trunk@53141 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
RDoc 4.1.0 contains a number of enhancements including a new default
style and accessibility support. You can see the changelog here:
https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc/blob/v4.1.0.preview.1/History.rdoc
* test/rdoc: ditto.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/trunk@42971 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
