Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

build mochajs.org with Jekyll; closes #1640 #1726

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

boneskull
Copy link
Contributor

Demo

Lots of stuff here, but the main things:

  • use Jekyll
  • convert index.md to actual GFM Markdown
  • a lot of edits of the documentation, including, but not limited to:
    • reorganization
    • grammar fixes
    • code style fixes
    • rewording confusing sentences
    • add a couple more examples
    • dynamically generate TOC
    • use CDNs for JS, though there's basically none

I've taken every effort to make the site look as close to the current version as it does now, and keep it compatible with old browsers. However, I was not able to reuse the syntax highlighting scheme, as highlighting is now done by Pygments.

screenshot 1

screenshot 2

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure why it doesn't want to merge automatically. This is rebased on top of 5e1fabd

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

somebody (not me) needs to look thru the demo site for problems.

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

ping @jbnicolai

@jbnicolai
Copy link

I'll have a go ;)

@rstacruz
Copy link
Contributor

ping! any updates here? :)

Lots of stuff here, but the main things:

- use Jekyll
- convert `index.md` to *actual GFM Markdown*
- a lot of edits of the documentation, including, but not limited to:
  - reorganization
  - grammar fixes
  - code style fixes
  - rewording confusing sentences
  - add a couple more examples
  - dynamically generate TOC
  - use CDNs for JS, though there's basically none

I've taken every effort to make the site look as close to the current version as it does now, and keep it compatible with old browsers.  However, I was not able to reuse the syntax highlighting scheme, as highlighting is now done by Pygments.

![screenshot 1](http://content.screencast.com/users/chiller/folders/Jing/media/32a9e9d6-b927-465a-a027-39d8bbfe0407/00000153.png)

![screenshot 2](http://content.screencast.com/users/chiller/folders/Jing/media/890e0481-65a4-4729-bc69-37098c48940f/00000154.png)
@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've updated this PR:

  1. Changed module which generates ToC to something I maintain, in case it needs fixing.
  2. Create heading id's via redcarpet instead of JS
  3. Fix Gemfile issue
  4. Reduce depth of ToC, so it should match more closely with the original

The only stylistic difference that I can see is that the syntax highlighting isn't the same (imo, it's better).

Of course, there's all the changes to the actual documentation and code examples itself, too.

@rstacruz Sorry about this; one of us is going to have to throw out work.

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @jbnicolai

@jbnicolai
Copy link

http://boneskull.com/mocha/#-w-watch seems broken in the TOC (should have two dashes between 'w' and 'watch)

@jbnicolai
Copy link

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the 2 level of nesting layout in the TOC. Especially on a smaller width is looks very confusing, eg:

screen shot 2015-07-05 at 12 30 52

How about we limit it to only show top-level entries?

@jbnicolai
Copy link

The Gitter image now takes up more space, I think I prefer the old style.

New:
screen shot 2015-07-05 at 12 33 00

Old:
screen shot 2015-07-05 at 12 32 57

jbnicolai pushed a commit to jbnicolai/mocha that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2015
@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jbnicolai that's odd... why would you see two levels of nesting?

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jbnicolai I know why. because I didn't rebase into my gh-pages branch.

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jbnicolai you may wish to try to build the site yourself as well. but anyway, I updated boneskull.com/mocha with the new code.

@jbnicolai
Copy link

@boneskull I have, see http://blog.jbnicolai.com/mocha/

I suggest we go with #1777 though, as it includes both your branch, the competing branch and some additional changes :)

@boneskull
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jbnicolai Yes, let's go with your code anyway.

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.

3 participants