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

Lint markdown - without changes to content #1805

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wolf99
Copy link

@wolf99 wolf99 commented Dec 31, 2023

Hi
I noticed some issues some time ago with the website and docs, related to the formatting of markdown.
I cant recall the specific issue, but I've had linting the Infer markdown docs on my todo list since then.
This PR is a first pass at the low hanging fruit fixes, those that do not require any changes to the content.
If there is interest I can see if I can carve out some time to look at fixes for more involved linting issues.

I have not linted the files in website/versioned_docs/* as I assumed these are archives of past versions.
Not sure if there is any action needed by be in relation to that for the changes I have made to the current version?

@jvillard
Copy link
Contributor

jvillard commented Apr 2, 2024

Thank you, @wolf99, this looks promising. Can I ask how you generated these changes?

@wolf99
Copy link
Author

wolf99 commented Apr 2, 2024

Hi @jvillard

I see that there are merge conflicts now as the main branch has moved on since I raised this.

I have created this PR by simply opening the repo locally in my IDE and run a markdown linter that uses https://github.com/DavidAnson/markdownlint-cli2, then manually correcting the issues it listed (actually a subset of the issues it listed).

As a suggestion, a good way to keep the repo well linted is to add a CI flow that does this for any PR. There is a good Action that can be used for this, here: https://github.com/DavidAnson/markdownlint-cli2-action.
I could add this as a later PR if the suggestion is acceptable.

@wolf99
Copy link
Author

wolf99 commented Apr 2, 2024

Rebased this.

I hate trying to resolve big merge conflicts though. If this is wanted, would it be possible to merge it quite soon so as to avoid the need again? @jvillard

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants