silkie VS ssg-factory

[metadata] name = silkie version = 1.0.7 ... description = Static site generator with the smoothness of silk long_description = file: README.md long_description_content_type = text/markdown url = https://github.com/oliver-pham/silkie project_urls = Bug Tracker = https://github.com/oliver-pham/silkie/issues classifiers = Programming Language :: Python :: 3 License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License Operating System :: OS Independent [options] packages = silkie python_requires = >=3.9 install_requires = click >= 8.0.0 markdown >= 3.3.0 yattag >= 1.14.0 python-frontmatter >= 1.0.0 [options.entry_points] console_scripts = silkie = silkie.cli:silkie

Last week, I already set up some automation tests for Silkie, my static site generator (SSG). Instead of running tests manually on each Pull Request (PR), I made an attempt to configure GitHub Actions to automate this Continuous Integration (CI) workflow. Moreover, I also helped my friend, Luke, add a test case to his SSG this week.

According to my parter's issue, I create a new test file named. I pull a new PR, the partner's Actions passed it. Before that, I found that many projects have the function of automatic error checking. I wonder how to do it. After lab9, I also created my own GitHub actions. I'm very excited.

After setting up static analysis tools last week, it's time to configure a testing framework for Continuous Integration (CI). There are several options for Silkie, my work-in-progress static site generator, but I decided to give Pytest a try. In this blog, I'll show you how I set up:

If you are tired of maintaining your coding style, I have good news for you. Fortunately, there are developer tools that can automate and streamline mundane development tasks. In this blog, I'll show you how I integrated 2 static code analysis tools and a package manager for pre-commit hooks into Silke, my work-in-progress static site generator.

After wandering the world of static site generators (SSG), I came across an eye-catching, well-documented, and developer-friendly one focusing on documentation sites: Docusaurus. After diving a bit deeper into their documentation, I realized they have many out-of-the-box features, which I can try integrating into Silke, an SSG I wrote from scratch.

This week, I noticed that some functions in my static site generator (SSG) were hardcoded with complex logic and "magic values", so I decided to focus on refactoring them. Without cleaning them up, maintaining them would be a tragedy. For instance, there was a function spanning 36 lines of code with 8 if/elif statements. Some of the statements even have nested if/elif statements themselves. You can find the function referenced in this issue.

This week on my Open Source journey, I attempted to add support for JSON formatted configuration files for an open source Static Site Generator (SSG). The owner of the repo, Tengzhen, also contributed the same feature to my SSG, Silkie. However, I made a step forward by testing his code from a tracking branch before merging it.

After establishing Markdown support for my static site generator (SSG), I decided to enable parsing Markdown horizontal rules along with HTML document language support. However, I developed the two features on separate branches this time, so I could switch between the two if I encountered any obstacle. Little did I know the obstacle was awaiting me at the end.

As for Eugene, he also contributed the same feature to Silkie, my SSG. I noticed his code might need to be fixed and refactored, so we worked together on both Slack and GitHub to resolve those issues. Given our time constraint and Eugene's lack of experience with Python, it was a success that we managed to add a new feature without breaking the existing ones.

After ensuring that the CI was working, I decided to file an issue to Tue's repo and asked if I could help him test his text to HTML conversion. We worked with each other through Slack and GitHub, with myself taking notes of what he wanted to check and what the expected results should be. After struggling with managing and rebase commits when changing the code based on Tue's review, I was able to merge my pull request.

Afterwards, I pulled the repo to update my local and added more tests to my program as I recently refactored it to test easier. One of the commits passed testing after integrating GitHub Actions.

This week, I have a chance implement them into my project as an author to ensure my code stay consistent when different people contribute. The extensions I chose to add to the workflow are:

You can take a look at the commit and my Docusaurus demo site

Checkout THE COMMIT

You can take a look at Roxanne's repo here or mine

This week, I continued working with Git and Github to learn the basics of pull requests, code reviews and more. I collaborated with Tue Nguyen to add functionality to his Static Site Generator: tue-1st-ssg.

Francesco's SSG My SSG

The issues weren't severed, the program still functioned fine, but the HTML files generated had quite a few HTML markdown errors and the help command didn't print enough information. After some discussions, Oliver managed to fixed those issues easily, he also caused a bug but quickly patched it up.

It didn't take me a lot of time to fix the issue, so I decided, in return for his help, to test his program, which was also a SSG written in Javascript.