index.html: Comment out setup/ link to make installation-tests opt-in #278
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sometimes instructors forget to customize their CHECKS, but learners still follow this link and run the stock checks, resulting in a bunch of confusing errors about missing packages that the learner doesn't actually need [1,2,3,4]. Instead of expecting instructors to edit CHECKS or remove the setup/ reference from index.html (a default that is right for nobody), this commit comments that setup/ reference out (a default that is right for folks who don't want installation-checks). Instructors who *do* want installation checks now need to do two things (uncomment the setup/ reference and update CHECKS), but with both steps listed in CUSTOMIZATION they are more likely to get that right. [1]: carpentries#136 [2]: carpentries#180 [3]: carpentries#181 [4]: carpentries#258
|
I'm +1, but as a temporary fix before we agree in a solution to handle the checking in an automated way. |
|
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 03:59:36PM -0800, Ivan Gonzalez wrote:
Greg suggests that some folks may not want installation testing at all |
|
Ok, full +1 then... :) On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:07 AM, W. Trevor King [email protected]
|
|
I'm -1 until we've tested this with novice instructors.
|
|
I _want_ installation testing - I just want something that our
instructors and learners will actually use when they need it, with the
skills they have.
|
|
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:08:20AM -0800, Greg Wilson wrote:
Do we have a plan for testing this? With a single workshop-template |
|
I agree it's time to introduce dev branches. I'll try to come up with a
plan in the next couple of days.
|
rgaiacs
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2016
index.html: Comment out setup/ link to make installation-tests opt-in
wking
added a commit
to wking/workshop-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2016
…tions Ivan brought this idea back up in maintainers@ recently [1]. I think the last time it was raised seriously was [2], which has reasonable links into earlier discussion. The main argument against tags was that it was too hard to find the source for a particular line you wanted to tweak [3]. This commit restores our old liquid templating to show/hide sections *without* splitting the sections out into sub-files (e.g. bc#738 had _includes/setup/linux-editor.html). If we keep everything in the index file, we can have tags and instructors can either adjust the tags or easily find/edit/delete as they see fit. A few notes on the implementation: * I've gone with double quotes in the YAML front matter for consistency with the other entries, but stuck with the original (from swcarpentry/bc) single quotes for the liquid conditionals. * I've kept "check" and "VM" out of the default tools list to match the current display, but we may want to enable everything and write a stronger message about removing stuff you don't need to avoid repeating the problems we had with check being visible by default [4]. Because folks will have to tweak the tools list if they want to enable the "check" or "VM" sections, I've added comments at the beginning of each section pointing instructors back up at the YAML front matter. * I've moved the "check" section out of the Python section, because while the tool doesn't currently test R packages, it does test Git, Bash, text editors, etc., and it could certainly be extended to test R if someone with R knowledge wanted to chip in (although it's harder to *run* the script on Windows without bundling Python) [5]. [1]: http://lists.software-carpentry.org/pipermail/maintainers_lists.software-carpentry.org/2016-March/000179.html Subject: Re: [Maintainers] Vote needed for setup instructions Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:05:33 -0500 Message-ID: <CAJpTZ0DPYKgu2fbi6dZ3XvZVyed0MwmS-jTR-e-Y3uYoZKoctQ@mail.gmail.com> [2]: swcarpentry/DEPRECATED-bc#738 [3]: swcarpentry/DEPRECATED-bc#729 (comment) [4]: carpentries#278 [5]: carpentries#136 (comment)
wking
added a commit
to wking/workshop-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2016
…tions Ivan brought this idea back up in maintainers@ recently [1]. I think the last time it was raised seriously was [2], which has reasonable links into earlier discussion. The main argument against tags was that it was too hard to find the source for a particular line you wanted to tweak [3]. This commit restores our old liquid templating to show/hide sections *without* splitting the sections out into sub-files (e.g. bc#738 had _includes/setup/linux-editor.html). If we keep everything in the index file, we can have tags and instructors can either adjust the tags or easily find/edit/delete as they see fit. A few notes on the implementation: * I've gone with double quotes in the YAML front matter for consistency with the other entries, but stuck with the original (from swcarpentry/bc) single quotes for the liquid conditionals. * I've kept "test" and "VM" out of the default tools list to match the current display, but we may want to enable everything and write a stronger message about removing stuff you don't need to avoid repeating the problems we had with the installation-test link being visible by default [4]. Because folks will have to tweak the tools list if they want to enable the "test" or "VM" sections, I've added comments at the beginning of each section pointing instructors back up at the YAML front matter. * I've moved the "test" section out of the Python section, because while the tool doesn't currently test R packages, it does test Git, Bash, text editors, etc., and it could certainly be extended to test R if someone with R knowledge wanted to chip in (although it's harder to *run* the script on Windows without bundling Python) [5]. The new header separates the test section from the previous section. [1]: http://lists.software-carpentry.org/pipermail/maintainers_lists.software-carpentry.org/2016-March/000179.html Subject: Re: [Maintainers] Vote needed for setup instructions Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:05:33 -0500 Message-ID: <CAJpTZ0DPYKgu2fbi6dZ3XvZVyed0MwmS-jTR-e-Y3uYoZKoctQ@mail.gmail.com> [2]: swcarpentry/DEPRECATED-bc#738 [3]: swcarpentry/DEPRECATED-bc#729 (comment) [4]: carpentries#278 [5]: carpentries#136 (comment)
fmichonneau
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2018
Run lesson-fixme from within lesson-check
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Sometimes instructors forget to customize their CHECKS, but learners
still follow this link and run the stock checks, resulting in a bunch
of confusing errors about missing packages that the learner
doesn't actually need. Instead of expecting
instructors to edit CHECKS or remove the setup/ reference from
index.html (a default that is right for nobody), this commit comments
that setup/ reference out (a default that is right for folks who don't
want installation-checks). Instructors who do want installation
checks now need to do two things (uncomment the setup/ reference and
update CHECKS), but with both steps listed in CUSTOMIZATION they are
more likely to get that right.
Spun off from this thread.