On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:32:53PM +0100, Timo Röhling wrote:
Hi Andreas,
* Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> [2021-11-10 18:14]:
nbsphinx.NotebookError: TypeError in user_guide/style.ipynb:
'coroutine' object is not subscriptable
This seems to be an issue with nbconvert 5.6.1, which apparently is
not playing nice with updated Jupyter notebook packages [1].
The proximate cause was updating jupyter-client to 7, which changes some
existing APIs to be asynchronous. This requires patches or new versions
to some other packages (nbconvert included), and probably some other
packages which import jupyter bits and pieces directly. I'm working on
it.
The jupyter ecosystem is unfortunately suffering from a bit of runaway
complexity, which is making keeping up with all the bits (particularly
the web-connected bits, like notebook and ipywidgets) difficult.
I wonder what you think here whether it makes sense to stop
providing the docs for this package.
Even though I usually look up documentation online, I'm a bit
hesitant to drop the documentation completely, because I do need to
work "in the field" without Internet connection from time to time.
Maybe, as a compromise, we can cut out all the notebooks^H bells and
whistles and limit the offline documentation to the API reference
itself, which is arguably the most useful part? I don't know
how easy it is to trim down the documentation, though.
This I would consider. When working on python packages, my feeling is
that the documentation is a frequent cause of problems (sphinx
extensions, privacy breaches in templates, unpackaged themes, anything
that is meant to embed code), and honestly I don't think compiling it to
HTML adds very much value to users. If the documentation source is in
something which can be directly human-consumed like markdown or
restructuredtext, I'm inclined to think having that in the source
package is sufficient for the majority of use-cases.
Gordon