ci: validate internal doc comments match markdown documentation#32074
Merged
petrosagg merged 8 commits intoMaterializeInc:mainfrom Feb 19, 2026
Merged
ci: validate internal doc comments match markdown documentation#32074petrosagg merged 8 commits intoMaterializeInc:mainfrom
petrosagg merged 8 commits intoMaterializeInc:mainfrom
Conversation
petrosagg
force-pushed
the
ci-validate-doc-comments
branch
from
6bce7f8 to
683da24
Compare
ParkMyCar
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2025
antiguru
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2025
Member
antiguru
left a comment
antiguru
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, thank you! Left a comment inline.
| print(" ".join([str(position), field, type_name])) | ||
| documentation = documentation.replace(" ", "␠") | ||
| print(" ".join([field, type_name, documentation])) | ||
| position += 1 |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably don't need position anymore?
def-
reviewed
Apr 2, 2025
| field = FIELD_NAME_RE.search(fields[0]).group(1) | ||
| type_name = FIELD_TYPE_RE.search(fields[1]).group(1) | ||
| documentation = DOC_LINK_TYPE1_RE.sub(r"\1", fields[2]) | ||
| documentation = DOC_LINK_TYPE2_RE.sub(r"\1", documentation) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is documentation being assigned twice? Edit: I guess it makes sense, just doing two substitutions. I would have just nested them.
Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com>
petrosagg
force-pushed
the
ci-validate-doc-comments
branch
from
683da24 to
f8b62ba
Compare
patrickwwbutler
pushed a commit
to patrickwwbutler/materialize
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2026
…rializeInc#32074) <!-- Describe the contents of the PR briefly but completely. If you write detailed commit messages, it is acceptable to copy/paste them here, or write "see commit messages for details." If there is only one commit in the PR, GitHub will have already added its commit message above. --> ### Motivation This is a follow up PR from my previous work that will ensure the field documentation we publish in our docs is also reflected as comments in the product. Having it as a CI step will ensure the two will stay in sync. <!-- Which of the following best describes the motivation behind this PR? * This PR fixes a recognized bug. [Ensure issue is linked somewhere.] * This PR adds a known-desirable feature. [Ensure issue is linked somewhere.] * This PR fixes a previously unreported bug. [Describe the bug in detail, as if you were filing a bug report.] * This PR adds a feature that has not yet been specified. [Write a brief specification for the feature, including justification for its inclusion in Materialize, as if you were writing the original feature specification.] * This PR refactors existing code. [Describe what was wrong with the existing code, if it is not obvious.] --> ### Tips for reviewer The last commit is pure code gen and is marked as such <!-- Leave some tips for your reviewer, like: * The diff is much smaller if viewed with whitespace hidden. * [Some function/module/file] deserves extra attention. * [Some function/module/file] is pure code movement and only needs a skim. Delete this section if no tips. --> ### Checklist - [ ] This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. ([trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs](https://trigger-ci.dev.materialize.com/)) - [ ] This PR has an associated up-to-date [design doc](https://github.com/MaterializeInc/materialize/blob/main/doc/developer/design/README.md), is a design doc ([template](https://github.com/MaterializeInc/materialize/blob/main/doc/developer/design/00000000_template.md)), or is sufficiently small to not require a design. <!-- Reference the design in the description. --> - [ ] If this PR evolves [an existing `$T ⇔ Proto$T` mapping](https://github.com/MaterializeInc/materialize/blob/main/doc/developer/command-and-response-binary-encoding.md) (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a `T-proto` label. - [ ] If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label ([example](MaterializeInc/cloud#5021)). <!-- Ask in #team-cloud on Slack if you need help preparing the cloud PR. --> - [ ] If this PR includes major [user-facing behavior changes](https://github.com/MaterializeInc/materialize/blob/main/doc/developer/guide-changes.md#what-changes-require-a-release-note), I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post. --------- Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
This is a follow up PR from my previous work that will ensure the field documentation we publish in our docs is also reflected as comments in the product. Having it as a CI step will ensure the two will stay in sync.
Tips for reviewer
The last commit is pure code gen and is marked as such
Checklist
$T ⇔ Proto$Tmapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with aT-protolabel.