Skip to content

Conversation

@jll63
Copy link
Collaborator

@jll63 jll63 commented Nov 3, 2025

I’d just suggest adding a few checks and fallback values there (from Slack)

Not sure what a fallback value should be, although there is one: if the script doesn't recognize the context, it leaves base-url alone, that is, currently, it links to the release branch.

@pdimov for awareness

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds CI environment detection and dynamic base URL configuration to the Antora documentation build process, and removes a branch restriction from the GitHub Pages deployment workflow.

  • Detects CircleCI and GitHub CI environments to set repository-specific base URLs
  • Modifies and restores mrdocs.yml configuration file during the build process
  • Allows GitHub Pages deployment for any branch (previously restricted to feature/doc)

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File Description
doc/build_antora.sh Adds CI environment detection logic to dynamically set base URLs and implements config file backup/restore mechanism
.github/workflows/ci.yml Removes branch name restriction from GitHub Pages deployment condition

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@alandefreitas
Copy link
Member

Not sure what a fallback value should be

Hey! 😊 I was thinking maybe:

  • "boostorg" for ORG (since it looks like ORG isn’t used in the script anymore — not totally sure though, maybe "boostorg/openmethod" for the whole repo)
  • "master" instead of the SHA, in case that specific SHA can’t be found

But of course, you’d need to check if that really makes sense 👍❤️

@alandefreitas
Copy link
Member

These changes are great, by the way 😊 I can totally see a lot of people replicating this logic

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 92.03%. Comparing base (f7d47fb) to head (dac3cf7).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
test/test_virtual_ptr_doc.cpp 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop      #45      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    93.03%   92.03%   -1.00%     
===========================================
  Files           40       40              
  Lines         2713     2838     +125     
  Branches      1226     1354     +128     
===========================================
+ Hits          2524     2612      +88     
- Misses         159      187      +28     
- Partials        30       39       +9     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
test/test_virtual_ptr_doc.cpp 91.07% <0.00%> (-3.53%) ⬇️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 83bc8d2...dac3cf7. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jll63 jll63 requested a review from Copilot November 9, 2025 14:49
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jll63 jll63 requested a review from Copilot November 9, 2025 15:32
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jll63 jll63 requested a review from Copilot November 9, 2025 16:23
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jll63 jll63 requested a review from Copilot November 15, 2025 20:48
Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of jll63 November 15, 2025 20:51
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@jll63 jll63 requested a review from Copilot November 15, 2025 21:48
Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of jll63 November 15, 2025 21:50
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 15 out of 15 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.


💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

base_url="https://github.com/${repository}/blob/${sha}"
echo "Setting base-url to $base_url"
cp mrdocs.yml mrdocs.yml.bak
perl -i -pe 's{^\s*base-url:.*$}{base-url: '"$base_url/"'}' mrdocs.yml
Copy link

Copilot AI Nov 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Inconsistent trailing slash handling for base_url. Line 41 adds a trailing slash when writing to mrdocs.yml ("$base_url/"), but line 66 uses $base_url without the trailing slash for HTML substitution. Since the documentation files use paths like {{BASE_URL}}/include/..., using $base_url (without trailing slash) in line 66 is correct. However, line 41 should not add the trailing slash to maintain consistency. Consider changing line 41 to: perl -i -pe 's{^\s*base-url:.*$}{base-url: '"$base_url"'}' mrdocs.yml

Suggested change
perl -i -pe 's{^\s*base-url:.*$}{base-url: '"$base_url/"'}' mrdocs.yml
perl -i -pe 's{^\s*base-url:.*$}{base-url: '"$base_url"'}' mrdocs.yml

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
Includes `core.hpp` and `macros.hpp`.

[#initialize]
### link:{{BASE_URL}}/include/boost/initialize.hpp[<boost/initialize.hpp>]
Copy link

Copilot AI Nov 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The path should be <boost/openmethod/initialize.hpp> instead of <boost/initialize.hpp> to match the correct header location.

Suggested change
### link:{{BASE_URL}}/include/boost/initialize.hpp[<boost/initialize.hpp>]
### link:{{BASE_URL}}/include/boost/openmethod/initialize.hpp[<boost/openmethod/initialize.hpp>]

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
@jll63 jll63 merged commit dac3cf7 into boostorg:develop Nov 16, 2025
53 of 55 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants