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

Remove version info from Werkzeug in the docs #1852

Open
dawran6 opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 5 comments
Open

Remove version info from Werkzeug in the docs #1852

dawran6 opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@dawran6
Copy link
Member

@dawran6 dawran6 commented Jun 2, 2016

The following version information is coming from the Werkzeug docs: "New in version 0.6: The location can now be a unicode string that is encoded using the iri_to_uri() function." See http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/0.11/api/#flask.redirect.

There might be more of this kind of issue in the documentation. For this particular one, you can trace the code to docs/api.rst,:

.. autofunction:: redirect
@davidism

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@davidism davidism commented Jun 4, 2016

@untitaker really not sure what to do here. Maybe there's a way to indicate the package as well as the version for externals we're re-documenting? Or disable the versions in those cases? This came up while looking at #1704.

@untitaker

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@untitaker untitaker commented Jun 4, 2016

We should set a manual description for this function, and refer to Werkzeug docs (see intersphinx for that).

Another reason for a necessary rephrasing is that "return a WSGI application" is unnecessarily low-level for Flask's docs, and only appropriate for Werkzeug's.

@davidism davidism added the docs label Jun 1, 2017
@davidism

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@davidism davidism commented Jun 9, 2017

Similar to how I wrote a plugin to collapse old version directives, maybe we can write a plugin that adds "Werkzeug version ...". That would be a lot more maintainable.

@tristanfisher

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@tristanfisher tristanfisher commented Jun 9, 2017

I apologize if this is more general, but what level of technical detail is desired when writing Flask docs? I wouldn't consider mentioning WSGI to be low-level, but can understand if that's meant to be abstracted.

@davidism

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@davidism davidism commented Jun 9, 2017

I don't have a particular problem with how the API docs read currently. If we need to simplify something that can be done at a later time.

@jab jab added the save-for-sprint label May 30, 2019
SHAKILEASH added a commit to SHAKILEASH/flask that referenced this issue Jul 13, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.