Kramdown warnings

[gpakosz]

Summary

This PR does two things in two commits:

• tell which item and rep produces a kramdown warning
• implements warning filtering (see Option to disable/filter kramdown warnings #675) as kramdown itself as no warning switches

To do

The :warning_filters array should be documented on https://nanoc.ws as part of the filters reference documentation.

[denisdefreyne]

I’d replace

"… item, rep: #{item.identifier}, #{item_rep.name}"

with

"… #{item_rep.inspect}"

[denisdefreyne]

Looks good! There’s a couple of style issues that Travis CI complains about still.

[denisdefreyne]

Replace this with warnings.any? (I know Rubocop says warnings.length.nonzero? but that’s not as nice.)

[denisdefreyne]

Replace

!(r =~ warning)

with

r !~ warning

Or alternatively, replace

select { |warning| !(r =~ warning) }

with

reject { |warning| r =~ warning }

[denisdefreyne]

Does it make sense to provide the warning filters via the configuration file, rather than arguments to the filter call? That’d make the dup dance unnecessary, and I guess it’d avoid having to copy the filter warnings if you call the :kramdown filter more than once…

[gpakosz]

I took your comments into account.

Well in my setup, I was already doing e.g in nanoc.yaml.

# erb filter options
erb:
  trim_mode: '<>'

and then when filtering

filter :erb, @config[:erb] || {}

A quick grep didn't really exhibit existing filters reading their options straight from @config, do you want to introduce a new behavior? (which kinda opens other questions like @config[:kramdown][:warning_filters] or @config[:kramdown_warning_filters] 🤔 ?)

[connorshea]

This is awesome, I've wanted this myself. Thanks @gpakosz!

[denisdefreyne]

I’m OK with leaving it as a filter argument, as it’s more flexible, and still leaves open the option for using the configuration in the way you described.

Is this still WIP or is it ready to go?