5 :Author: David Goodger; open to all Docutils developers
6 :Contact: goodger@python.org
9 :Copyright: This document has been placed in the public domain.
11 .. _Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
14 Bugs in Docutils?!? Yes, we do have a few. Some are old-timers that
15 tend to stay in the shadows and don't bother anybody. Once in a while
16 new bugs are born. From time to time some bugs (new and old) crawl
17 out into the light and must be dealt with. Icky.
19 This document describes how to report a bug, and lists known bugs.
27 If you think you've discovered a bug, please read through these
28 guidelines before reporting it.
30 First, make sure it's a new bug:
32 * Please check the list of `known bugs`_ below and the `SourceForge
33 Bug Tracker`_ to see if it has already been reported.
35 * Are you using the very latest version of Docutils? The bug may have
36 already been fixed. Please get the latest version of Docutils from
37 the repository_ or from the current snapshot_ and check again. Even
38 if your bug has not been fixed, others probably have, and you're
39 better off with the most up-to-date code.
41 If you don't have time to check the latest snapshot, please report
42 the bug anyway. We'd rather tell you that it's already fixed than
43 miss reports of unfixed bugs.
45 * If Docutils does not behave the way you expect, look in the
46 documentation_ (don't forget the FAQ_!) and `mailing list archives`_
47 for evidence that it should behave the way you expect.
49 If you're not sure, please ask on the Docutils-users_ mailing list
52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
54 If it's a new bug, the most important thing you can do is to write a
55 simple description and a recipe that reproduces the bug. Try to
56 create a `minimal example`_ that demonstrates the bug. The easier you
57 make it to understand and track down the bug, the more likely a fix
60 .. sidebar:: minimal example
64 A minimal example is an example which is as small as possible. These
65 examples are much easier to understand than long examples.
67 To construct an example which is as small as possible, the rule is
68 quite simple: *remove anything which is not necessary*.
70 See also: `LaTeX FAQ`__, `Lilypond Documentation`__, minimalbeispiel.de__
72 __ http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
73 __ http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.9/Documentation/user/lilypond/Minimal-examples
74 __ http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
76 Now you're ready to write the bug report. Please include:
78 * A clear description of the bug. Describe how you expected Docutils
79 to behave, and contrast that with how it actually behaved. While
80 the bug may seem obvious to you, it may not be so obvious to someone
81 else, so it's best to avoid a guessing game.
83 * A complete description of the environment in which you reproduced
86 - Your operating system & version.
87 - The version of Python (``python -V``).
88 - The version of Docutils (use the "-V" option to most Docutils
90 - Any private modifications you made to Docutils.
91 - Anything else that could possibly be relevant. Err on the side
92 of too much information, rather than too little.
94 * A literal transcript of the *exact* command you ran, and the *exact*
95 output. Use the "--traceback" option to get a complete picture.
97 * The exact input and output files. Create a `minimal example`_
98 of the failing behaviour — it is better to attach complete files
99 to your bug report than to include just a summary or excerpt.
101 * If you also want to include speculation as to the cause, and even a
102 patch to fix the bug, that would be great!
104 The best place to send your bug report is to the `SourceForge Bug
105 Tracker`_. That way, it won't be misplaced or forgotten. In fact, an
106 open bug report on SourceForge is a constant irritant that begs to be
111 (This section was inspired by the `Subversion project's`__ BUGS__
114 __ http://subversion.tigris.org/
115 __ http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/trunk/BUGS?view=markup
117 .. _CVS: http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=38414
118 .. _repository: docs/dev/repository.html
119 .. _snapshot: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/#download
120 .. _documentation: docs/
122 .. _mailing list archives: http://docutils.sf.net/#mailing-lists
123 .. _Docutils-users: docs/user/mailing-lists.html#docutils-users
124 .. _SourceForge Bug Tracker:
125 http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=38414&atid=422030
131 Also see the `SourceForge Bug Tracker`_.
133 * The HTML writer generates invalid XHTML for _`centered images with
136 .. image:: example.png
138 :target: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
140 This results in ``<a><div><img /></div></a>``, which is invalid.
142 * .. _error reporting:
144 Calling rst2s5.py with a non-existent theme (``--theme
145 does_not_exist``) or a non-existent language (``--language zz``)
146 causes exceptions. Such errors should be handled more gracefully.
148 * The "stylesheet" setting (a URL, to be used verbatim) should be
149 allowed to be combined with "embed_stylesheet". The stylesheet data
150 should be read in using urllib. There was an assumption that a
151 stylesheet to be embedded should exist as a file on the local
152 system, and only the "stylesheet_path" setting should be used.
154 * ``utils.relative_path()`` sometimes returns absolute _`paths on
155 Windows` (like ``C:/test/foo.css``) where it could have chosen a
158 Furthermore, absolute pathnames are inserted verbatim, like
159 ``href="C:/test/foo.css"`` instead of
160 ``href="file:///C:/test/foo.css"``.
162 For details, see `this posting by Alan G. Isaac
163 <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.docutils.user/1569>`_.
165 * _`Line numbers` and "source" in system messages are inconsistent.
167 - In text inserted by the "include" directive, errors are often not
168 reported with the correct "source" or "line" numbers.
170 This is partially fixed in the commits from 2009-09-25 and 2009-10-28.
171 The test in test/test_parsers/test_rst/test_directives/test_include.py
172 works, but there are still plenty of system messages pointing to the
175 - Perhaps all Reporter calls need "source" and "line" keyword arguments?
177 Alternatively, give `document.reporter` access to the state machine
178 instance `document.statemachine` and extract the "source" and "line"
179 info from `statemachine.input_lines`.
180 Except for special cases, there is even no need to call with "line":
181 During parsing, `document.statemachine` knows the current line number.
182 For system messages generated after the parsing is completed (i.e. by
183 transforms or the writer) "line" info must be present in the doctree
186 - Elements' .line assignments should be checked. (Assign to .source
187 too? Add a set_info method? To what?)
189 The "source" (and line number in the source) could either be added
190 explicitely to the elements or determined from the “raw” line number by
191 `document.statemachine.get_source_spot`.
193 - Some line numbers in elements are not being set properly
194 (explicitly), just implicitly/automatically. See rev. 1.74 of
195 docutils/parsers/rst/states.py for an example of how to set.
197 - The line numbers of definition list items are wrong::
199 $ rst2pseudoxml.py --expose-internal-attribute line
208 <document source="<stdin>">
210 <definition_list_item internal:line="3">
214 <paragraph internal:line="2">
217 <definition_list_item internal:line="6">
221 <paragraph internal:line="6">
227 Quite a few nodes are getting a "None" source attribute as well. In
228 particular, see the bodies of definition lists.
230 * Footnote label "5" should be "4" when processing the following
233 ref [#abc]_ [#]_ [1]_ [#4]_
242 <document source="<stdin>">
245 <footnote_reference auto="1" ids="id1" refid="abc">
248 <footnote_reference auto="1" ids="id2" refid="id5">
251 <footnote_reference ids="id3" refid="id6">
254 <footnote_reference auto="1" ids="id4" refid="id7">
256 <footnote auto="1" backrefs="id1" ids="abc" names="abc">
261 <footnote auto="1" backrefs="id2" ids="id5" names="3">
266 <footnote backrefs="id3" ids="id6" names="1">
271 <footnote auto="1" backrefs="id4" ids="id7" names="4">
277 * IDs are based on names. Explicit hyperlink targets have priority
278 over implicit targets. But if an explicit target comes after an
279 implicit target with the same name, the ID of the first (implicit)
280 target remains based on the implicit name. Since HTML fragment
281 identifiers based on the IDs, the first target keeps the name. For
294 text with a reference to contents_ and section_
298 This paragraph is explicitly targeted with the name "section".
300 When processed to HTML, the 2 internal hyperlinks (to "contents" &
301 "section") will work fine, but hyperlinks from outside the document
302 using ``href="...#contents"`` and ``href="...#section"`` won't work.
303 Such external links will connect to the implicit targets (table of
304 contents and "Section" title) instead of the explicit targets
305 ("Subsection" title and last paragraph).
307 Hyperlink targets with duplicate names should be assigned new IDs
308 unrelated to the target names (i.e., "id"-prefix serial IDs).
310 * The "contents" ID of the local table of contents in
311 ``test/functional/expected/standalone_rst_pseudoxml.txt`` is lost in
313 ``test/functional/expected/standalone_rst_html4css1.html``.
315 * _`Blank first columns` in simple tables with explicit row separators
316 silently swallow their input. They should at least produce system
317 error messages. But, with explicit row separators, the meaning is
318 unambiguous and ought to be supported::
320 ============== ==========
321 Table with row separators
322 ============== ==========
324 -------------- ----------
326 -------------- ----------
328 -------------- ----------
330 ============== ==========
332 Added a commented-out test case to
333 test/test_parsers/test_rst/test_SimpleTableParser.py.
335 * _`Footnote references with hyperlink targets` cause a possibly
336 invalid node tree and make the HTML writer crash::
342 <document source="<stdin>">
344 <footnote_reference ids="id1" refuri="URI">
346 <target ids="id2" names="1" refuri="URI">
348 * Anonymous references have "name" attributes. Should they? Are they
349 used? See ``test/test_parsers/test_rst/test_inline_markup.py``.
351 * <reference> elements have a "name" attribute, not "names". The
352 attribute should be "names"; this is an inconsistency.
358 indent-tabs-mode: nil
359 sentence-end-double-space: t