Very much agree. I am quite against adding a new workflow and will yet add more noise, more message to read. The rather keep the CI as is.
On 2026/05/08 21:18:00 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Sorry - sent to fast. We have enough of those reminders already ... When > the docs will be built on CI and fail in your PR - you already have > sufficient feedback your doc build fails - no additional workflow is > needed. > > On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 11:13 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think prompts to check rendering are counter-productive. We do not want > > more messages or reminders. We have enough > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 8:10 AM gui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> First of all, thank you all for sharing your thoughts and suggestions. > >> The discussion really helped me investigate the options more thoroughly. > >> > >> After testing both tools, I found some limitations: > >> 1. **rstcheck** has false positives in our codebase > >> 2. **sphinx-lint** didn't catch the heading level issue from PR #66252 > >> > >> Given these findings, I'd like to propose a lighter-weight alternative: > >> > >> Instead of adding a linter, we could add a GitHub CI workflow that posts > >> a reminder comment on PRs that modify `.rst` files, prompting the author > >> to check RST rendering on GitHub. > >> > >> This approach: > >> - Doesn't require fixing existing documentation issues > >> - Avoids false positives from linters > >> - Provides just-in-time reminders during code review > >> > >> If this direction isn't preferred, that's completely fine - I just wanted > >> to share what I found during the investigation. > >> I'd love to hear your thoughts on this alternative approach. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Yunhui Chae > >> > >> 2026년 5월 3일 (일) 오전 12:57, Jens Scheffler <[email protected]>님이 작성: > >> > >> > I am also supportive but in my past (but worked ~2 years ago on this) no > >> > checker was really "good" and I had massive false-positives. Hope the > >> > static checkers have improved as early feedback can be helpful before CI > >> > runs for long and fails. Unfortunately the static check seems not to be > >> > easy. > >> > > >> > On 02.05.26 17:22, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >> > > Hi Yunhui, > >> > > > >> > > Please proceed with the PR. I agree with Shahar that documentation > >> files > >> > > should likely be excluded initially, as Sphinx verifies them and they > >> use > >> > > extensions that might trigger false positives in basic checkers. > >> > > > >> > > However, if you find a tool that can run on the docs/ folder without > >> > > excessive noise or easily fixable failures - as Piyush mentioned, it > >> > would > >> > > be a valuable addition. Flagging issues like missing empty lines > >> before > >> > > lists locally via pre-commit would be better than waiting for CI > >> results. > >> > > It may be difficult to keep it noise-free, but it is worth > >> investigating. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Jarek Potiuk > >> > > > >> > > On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 2:47 PM Piyush Mudgal < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I support this proposal. Adding an RST linter to pre-commit hooks > >> will > >> > help > >> > >> contributors ensure documentation is correctly formatted before > >> > submission. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Piyush Mudgal > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 4:34 PM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> I support this idea, as long as it targets RST files intended for > >> > >>> GitHub reading (mostly development-facing docs). Automatically > >> > >>> generated RST files should be excluded to avoid noisy failures and > >> > >>> keep the hook focused on files contributors edit directly. Later, we > >> > >>> could use such a linter to improve the templates used to generate > >> > >>> those files, but that requires some more research and can wait for a > >> > >>> later stage. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Shahar > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 1:17 PM gui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> I'd like to propose adding an RST linter to our pre-commit hooks. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ## Motivation > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Recently, PR #66252 [1] was submitted to fix an RST heading level > >> > error > >> > >>>> that broke GitHub rendering. Currently, such syntax errors are only > >> > >>> caught > >> > >>>> during the documentation build process, which delays feedback for > >> > >>>> contributors. By adding an RST linter, we can catch these issues > >> > >> locally > >> > >>>> before the code is even pushed. > >> > >>>> ## Current State > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> We have `rst-backticks` hook but no RST syntax validation. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ## Proposal > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Add either `rstcheck` [2] or `sphinx-lint` [3] to pre-commit: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ```yaml > >> > >>>> # rstcheck > >> > >>>> - repo: https://github.com/rstcheck/rstcheck > >> > >>>> rev: v6.2.5 > >> > >>>> hooks: > >> > >>>> - id: rstcheck > >> > >>>> additional_dependencies: ['rstcheck[sphinx,toml]'] > >> > >>>> ``` > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Both tools catch RST syntax errors early. `rstcheck` is more > >> > >>> comprehensive; > >> > >>>> `sphinx-lint` is lighter and Sphinx-focused. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ## Note > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Pre-commit hooks only run on changed files by default, so existing > >> > >>>> documentation won't break. We can incrementally fix existing issues > >> > >> over > >> > >>>> time rather than in one big bang. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> If there's interest, I can prepare a PR with the implementation. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Best regards, > >> > >>>> Yunhui Chae > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/66252 > >> > >>>> [2] https://github.com/rstcheck/rstcheck > >> > >>>> [3] https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/sphinx-lint > >> > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
