[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] doc/sphinx: Enable keep_warnings

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Markus Heiser
<markus.heiser at darmarit.de> wrote:
> Hi Daniel, hi Mauro,
>
> Am 19.07.2016 um 17:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Markus Heiser
>>> <markus.heiser at darmarit.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 19.07.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately warnings generated after parsing in sphinx can end up
>>>>> with entirely bogus files and line numbers as sources. Strangely for
>>>>> outright errors this is not a problem. Trying to convert warnings to
>>>>> errors also doesn't fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way to get useful output out of sphinx to be able to root
>>>>> cause the error seems to be enabling keep_warnings, which inserts
>>>>> a System Message into the actual output. Not pretty at all, but I
>>>>> don't really want to fix up core rst/sphinx code, and this gets the job
>>>>> done meanwhile.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> may I misunderstood you. Did you really get more or different warnings
>>>> if you include them into the output with "keep_warnings"?
>>>>
>>>> The documentation says:
>>>>
>>>>  "Regardless of this setting, warnings are always written
>>>>   to the standard error stream when sphinx-build is run."
>>>>
>>>> see http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/config.html#confval-keep_warnings
>>>>
>>>> Or did you not run "make cleandoc" first? Sphinx caches the doctrees
>>>> and reports markup errors only when you rebuild the cache.
>>>> The cache is also rebuild if you touch one of the source, e.g.
>>>> the drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c or the rst-file where the drm_crtc.c
>>>> is referred by a kernel-doc directive .. these dependence sometimes
>>>> confuse me .. when I missed log messages, I clean the cache e.g. by
>>>> target cleandocs.
>>>
>>> Yes I'm aware that sphinx it's WARNINGs when doing a partially
>>> rebuild, this is something entirely different. I didn't get more or
>>> less warnings this way, but keep_warning = True seems to be the only
>>> way to get reasonable information about them. Without that I get
>>> warnings (for included kernel-doc) where the source file is the .rst
>>> file that pulls in the kernel doc, and the line number is entirely
>>> bogus (often past the end of the containing .rst).
>>>
>>> With this I can at least then open the generated .html file, search
>>> for the System Message and figure out (by looking at the surrounding
>>> context) where the error really is from.
>>>
>>> Strangely this only happens for WARNING. If I manged the kerneldoc
>>> enough to upset sphinx into generating an ERROR, the line numbers and
>>> source files are correct.
>>>
>>> See patch 2/2 in this series for examples of such WARNINGs: Mostly
>>> it's unbalanced _ * or `` annotations that confuse sphinx/rst a bit.
>>> If you want to play around with the gpu sphinx conversion to reproduce
>>> these locall you can grab the drm-intel-nightly branch from
>>>
>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel
>>>
>>> It already includes Jon's latest docs-next branch.
>>
>> btw, I couldn't check this since I didn't figure out how to intercept
>> the parsed rst tree and view it, but I think what's going on is:
>> - The source file for these warnings is .rst file containing the
>> kernel-doc directive. This seems to be a bug in sphinx/docutils since
>> we never use that file name when appending files at all.
>> - The line number looks like it's just counting the inserted
>> kernel-doc lines as part of the containing .rst file. At least
>> changing the content_offset in nested_parse seems to suggest that this
>> is the start line (e.g. adding 10k there results in all bogus WARNING
>> line numbers being increased by 10k). And adding more blank lines at
>> the beginning of the inserted kernel-doc rst also increases the
>> reported lines. But not when inserting blank lines at the end (i.e. it
>> seems like it's being reset after each directive again).
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
>> All that suggest to me this is a sphinx-internal issue, and google
>> sugggests there's lots of errata around line reporting. Hence why I
>> went with this. But of course a proper fix would be awesome! Just a
>> bit outside of what I think I can pull off ...
>
> It is not really a sphinx-internal issue (rather a drawback of the design).
> The state machine needs a system reporter that takes the origin file
> and it's line numbers as context.
>
> I send a fix to Jon:
>
>  http://mid.gmane.org/1469011138-12448-1-git-send-email-markus.heiser@darmarit.de
>
> could you test this patch and send us some feedback / thanks.

Yup, seems to work nicely. Thanks a lot for fixing this. Jon, pls
drop/revert my hack and take Markus' proper fix instead.

> One remark: The line numbers are not "perfect". This is due to the fact,
> that the kernel-doc parser could not generate "perfect" line numbers
> or all extracted doc-items .. daniel knows this ;)
>
> If you did not find the cause of a warning in the line number given
> by the warning, take a look one line or one block above and/or below,
> mostly you will see the cause.

Hm, I think I still have a few off-by-one in the kernel-doc line
numbers. But tbh with all the intermediate layers I wasn't sure which
one is wrong and where it would need to be fixed up. But it seems like
for a bunch of cases kernel-doc reports 1 line too much.

If someone with more insight into all this would try to improve this,
I think it'd be awesome ;-)

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch