Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 11, 2024. It is now read-only.

New Sphinx with extra values to unpack#79

Closed
dpshelio wants to merge 1 commit into
astropy:masterfrom
dpshelio:fix_newsphinx
Closed

New Sphinx with extra values to unpack#79
dpshelio wants to merge 1 commit into
astropy:masterfrom
dpshelio:fix_newsphinx

Conversation

@dpshelio

@dpshelio dpshelio commented Sep 3, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The current version of sphinx installed by conda (v1.2.2) doesn't show the error the newer version produces: ValueError: too many values to unpack because the elements are not unpacked to the right amount of variables. This PR (originally in astropy/astropy#2914) add an extra variable to unpack all the elements properly.

In case you are interested, this was introduced in Sphinx by this commit

@embray

embray commented Sep 3, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I've actually started seeing this error in the Travis builds for Astropy's docs too, so I think it is now in conda (I'm not sure though).

@embray embray added this to the v0.4.2 milestone Sep 3, 2014
@embray

embray commented Sep 3, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@dpshelio Would you mind adding a note in the changelog, under the 0.4.2 section--something like:

Fixed automodsumm to work with new versions of Sphinx (>= 1.2.2). [#79]

Thanks!

@embray embray added the bug label Sep 3, 2014
@embray

embray commented Sep 3, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Also the build failed for Python 3.2, but it seems to be some problem with the version of Jinja that's being installed with Sphinx? It appears it might not be compatible with Python 3.2. In any case, the tests for this are fine so we can ignore that failure for now until I get to the bottom of it.

…nts; new one introduced in Sphinx 1.2.3: module_name
@dpshelio

dpshelio commented Sep 4, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@embray I've updated the commit with the changes in the changelog. Noticed that PR #80 tackles the same problem but in a probably more efficient way.

@embray

embray commented Sep 4, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@dpshelio Thanks. I don't feel too strongly about which fix to use, though I suppose in principle this one could catch a ValueError from import_by_name that shouldn't be caught (though I don't know of any reason it would raise a ValueError). So I'll go with #80 instead.

@embray embray removed this from the v0.4.2 milestone Sep 4, 2014
@embray

embray commented Sep 4, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closed in favor of #80.

@embray embray closed this Sep 4, 2014
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants