Skip to content

Experiment with literalinclude#11667

Merged
greg0ire merged 1 commit intodoctrine:2.20.xfrom
greg0ire:literalinclude
Oct 14, 2024
Merged

Experiment with literalinclude#11667
greg0ire merged 1 commit intodoctrine:2.20.xfrom
greg0ire:literalinclude

Conversation

@greg0ire
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think it would be great to use literalinclude for big code snippets, because our IDEs could warn us about issues, and it would be easily to showcase our coding standard. Before we do that though, let us validate that it renders as expected. I have picked a complex example where we have a configuration block.

I think it would be great to use literalinclude for big code snippets,
because our IDEs could warn us about issues, and it would be easily to
showcase our coding standard. Before we do that though, let us validate
that it renders as expected. I have picked a complex example where we
have a configuration block.
@SenseException
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Before we do that though, let us validate that it renders as expected.

As in "It doesn't throw errors in the workflow" or if it looks the same?

@greg0ire
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

As in "it looks the same" (but the fact that it doesn't throw errors in the workflow is nice already). I'd like to merge and deploy the website, then check https://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/2.20/tutorials/working-with-indexed-associations.html#working-with-indexed-associations

@derrabus derrabus added this to the 2.20.1 milestone Oct 13, 2024
@greg0ire greg0ire merged commit ef4508e into doctrine:2.20.x Oct 14, 2024
@greg0ire greg0ire deleted the literalinclude branch October 14, 2024 06:15
@greg0ire
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

greg0ire commented Oct 16, 2024

Argh! The block disappeared 😧

Trying to understand it at https://doctrine.slack.com/archives/CERGRHPGD/p1729058112014159

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