Replies: 2 comments 10 replies
-
I very much like this idea! I'm a huge fan of the executablebooks tooling, but have often used the "lower-level" tools (e.g. the myst-nb sphinx extension) for projects rather than Oftentimes I find that 90% of what I'm looking for (namely myst syntax support, text-based .md notebooks, and execution caching) is encapsulated in I think the ideal situation for my workflow would be if there were an option where |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not 100% sure how the sphinx book config works currently, but it would be really great to have it closer to Sphinx. Given that Sphinx's config is just python, it would be really neat to be able to just write a normal sphinx config, add a Presumably you also want a cleaner way of handling this without a Again, I don't fully understand how jupyterbook works, but that was just an idea I had for a possible way of handling this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Right now, Jupyter Book has a
YAML
configuration that is a slight variation on Sphinx configuration. It is translated into a Sphinxconf.py
-style config. This lets us do things like bundle a bunch of config values in a key. e.g, all the execution variables in space here:https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/blob/master/jupyter_book/default_config.yml#L19
The downside to this is that it becomes complex to maintain - we are responsible for doing the minor mappings from
Jupyter Book
config toSphinx
config. It also becomes a bit awkward when you're depending on downstream extensions, as we'll have to document our own config docs for any "preferred" extensions we want to support.Another approach we could take is to move away from "Jupyter Book-specific config" and instead to document how to directly add Sphinx config like so:
In this case, we wouldn't actually be modifying any of the config values, we'd simply pass them through to Sphinx. I think this means we'd be at the wills of each extension author, but perhaps with the benefit of maintenance + docs simplicity? Maybe this would be better done for the "secondary extensions" that we depend on (especially the ones we don't control) but have custom config for the core MyST stuff like
execute:
?Would be curious to hear what others think...
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions