fix: re-cookie with scikit-package v0.1.0

[ycexiao]

close #159

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.85%. Comparing base (6526430) to head (a3facde).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #165   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.85%   96.85%           
=======================================
  Files          18       18           
  Lines         795      795           
=======================================
  Hits          770      770           
  Misses         25       25           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
tests/test_morphchain.py	96.96% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphpdftordf.py	96.00% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphrdftopdf.py	96.00% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphresolution.py	95.83% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphrgrid.py	98.33% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphscale.py	95.65% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphshape.py	95.83% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphshift.py	96.15% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphsmear.py	96.42% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_morphstretch.py	97.22% <ø> (ø)
... and 3 more

[ycexiao]

@bobleesj @sbillinge It's ready for review, thank you!

[sbillinge]

Thanks @ycexiao please see inline comments

@Sparks29032 @bobleesj @Tieqiong please can you take a quick look at this? Like PDFgui, this has a manual that uses texinfo. This may need different handling in general than standard docs as we have been discussing with @Tieqiong. I think there are a few decisions ot make:

1. migrate away from texinfo so we don't have to deal with this any more in the future in all projects
2. as 1 but just for pdfmorph, whose manual may not be so extensive atm
3. stay with texinfo and make a new workflow that handles this in all our projects.
4. something else

@ycexiao please can you organize a meeting with everyone listed and let's each of us bring a 5 minute pitch of which option we advocate for, then we can discuss to consensus....

[sbillinge]

This is more a question for @bobleesj but why is this here? Presumably we want to remove all references to rever if we are not using it any more, so having codespell flag it is helpful?

[bobleesj]

@ycexiao Could you try to remove the rever keyword and see if pre-commit still passes?

[sbillinge]

the point of the linting is to make the code better, so we want it to fail when that allows us to make the code better. Just a general comment.

[ycexiao]

I removed rever and codespell raise an error

codespell................................................................Failed
- hook id: codespell
- exit code: 65

CHANGELOG.rst:70: rever ==> revert, refer, fever

In the CHANGELOG.txt 70, there is

 v0.0.1
====================

**Changed:**

 * Fixed rever GH address

I think adding the words ignore here is necessary. It lets .codespell check other contents in the CHANGELOG.txt.

[sbillinge]

ok, sounds good.

[sbillinge]

@ycexiao please can you make an issue to have @Sparks29032 revisit this readme and bring it up to date and remove unwanted stuff

[bobleesj]

@ycexiao Overall good work considering this is your first time running skpkg fully.

It appears that the doc paths have been modified - have you tried rendering the doc locally to ensure the paths are all correct?

[ycexiao]

@ycexiao Overall good work considering this is your first time running skpkg fully.

It appears that the doc paths have been modified - have you tried rendering the doc locally to ensure the paths are all correct?

Sorry, but I want to ask what do we use to render docs?

[bobleesj]

@ycexiao please check the skpkg doc. https://billingegroup.github.io/scikit-package/scikit-package-guide.html#appendix-2-how-to-build-documentation-locally

[ycexiao]

@ycexiao please check the skpkg doc. https://billingegroup.github.io/scikit-package/scikit-package-guide.html#appendix-2-how-to-build-documentation-locally

I see. I rendered the documents locally and it doesn't perform well. I will fix this later.

[sbillinge]

@ycexiao please check the skpkg doc. https://billingegroup.github.io/scikit-package/scikit-package-guide.html#appendix-2-how-to-build-documentation-locally

I see. I rendered the documents locally and it doesn't perform well. I will fix this later.

do you mean you will make an issue and fix it on a separate PR? Or will you close this PR and make a new PR without the path changes in the docs?

Please see my comment about working with @Tieqiong on the docs. We will probably move away from using texinfo for docs and so all those changes should be on a separate PR. To avoid a large diff could we redo this PR without those changes? Sorry about that.

[ycexiao]

@ycexiao please check the skpkg doc. https://billingegroup.github.io/scikit-package/scikit-package-guide.html#appendix-2-how-to-build-documentation-locally

I see. I rendered the documents locally and it doesn't perform well. I will fix this later.

do you mean you will make an issue and fix it on a separate PR? Or will you close this PR and make a new PR without the path changes in the docs?

Please see my comment about working with @Tieqiong on the docs. We will probably move away from using texinfo for docs and so all those changes should be on a separate PR. To avoid a large diff could we redo this PR without those changes? Sorry about that.

These path changes are not related to texinfo here. But sure current PR is a bit messy here, I will redo the PR with cleaner commit history.