[texworks] Help files for Scripting
st.loeffler at gmail.com
Thu Jun 10 06:39:17 CEST 2021
On 08.06.21 14:22, Henrik Skov Midtiby wrote:
> The system is now working ;-)
That's awesome news! It looks very good. I had thought about roughly the
same idea, but you were much faster in implementing it :).
A few comments/questions/musings/suggestions:
*) My main concern with this method was that every commit is essentially
"doubled", i.e. for every commit to the master branch there will be a
corresponding commit to the gh-pages branch. This seems kind of wasteful
and blowing up the git history. But I haven't found any good way around
it, unless we find a system other than bookdown that is supported
natively by GitHub Pages/Jekyll (which is ruby-based, I think). One
"alternative" would be to create two separate repositories (one for the
sources, and one for the output) rather than a single repository with
two branches. The benefit would be that (naive) cloning of the sources
would not download all versions of the html output, but at the (IMO
high) cost of having two completely detached repositories.
*) Personally, I have come to preferring GitHub Actions over TravisCI.
Functionally, they are pretty similar. I used to use travis for building
TeXworks, until they abruptly introduced some quotas/usage limits a
while back (plus their Windows version never worked for me, but that's
irrelevant for the manuals). IMO, Github Actions also has the advantage
of being hosted directly on Github, which might make some things
(slightly) faster. There's also the possibility (with some trickery) to
make "artifacts" available (such as, here, the latest pdf version of the
*) The deploy script could potentially benefit from:
-) Commiting from the CI should ideally happen on behalf of the original
-) The case where files are deleted should be handled (probably
something along the lines of `rm *` before copying over the book) - or
is this handled and I missed it?
-) We should check if this gracefully handles all cases (e.g., does the
commit fail if none of the output files have changed?) unless you have
done so already
These are solely meant as suggestions for further improving the
infrastructure, I fully realize that this is a first "proof-of-concept"
On 08.06.21 16:45, Paul A Norman wrote:
> Would that be able potentially in the future to be set up under the
> area that Stefan is looking at as suggested in his earlier postings –
> do you think?
Yes, absolutely. We'd just have to migrate the repository - piece of
cake (hopefully ;)).
> Downloading and producing locally and reposting resultant document(s),
> seems a fair way to go.
> Would we use RStudio for production locally, or could we jump directly
> to pandoc?
Building it locally would only be required for testing purposes. To way
Henrik set it up, you'd ultimately only have to push (publish) the
changed source files and all the output would be built automatically
(whether with R or pandoc or any other tool; producing a website, a pdf,
an e-book, or whatever).
> And I assume that a seperate project could conceivably handle the main
> TeXworks manual?
> Or is there a case here, for just making the scripting API TwScript a
> section of that TeXworks manual, or is it better to keep them both
> separate from each other?
Personally, I would prefer to keep them separate/independent. The reason
being that the target audience is probably very different: on the one
hand a user trying to learn how to use TeXworks, who probably doesn't
want to see pages upon pages of "technical documentation"; on the other
hand a script programmer how doesn't want to have to skip pages upon
pages about downloading, installing, and using TeXworks for the first time.
All the best,
More information about the texworks