Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Site generate: failure to include generated document in index #257

Open
ronaldtse opened this issue Oct 13, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Site generate: failure to include generated document in index #257

ronaldtse opened this issue Oct 13, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects

Comments

@ronaldtse
Copy link
Contributor

https://github.com/metanorma/ogcapi-processes

Run bundle exec metanorma site generate, the index will contain no entry.

Screenshot 2021-10-13 at 9 29 43 AM

@ronaldtse ronaldtse added the bug Something isn't working label Oct 13, 2021
@ronaldtse ronaldtse added this to Low priority in Abu Nashir via automation Oct 13, 2021
@abunashir
Copy link
Member

Hi @ronaldtse: Looks like it's the same issue on the underlying lib we have had earlier - #215, we would explicitly need to specify the rxl for some reason here. I will create a PR for now, and will try to investigate why this standard behaves this way later.

@ronaldtse
Copy link
Contributor Author

@abunashir ah yes you're right. I wonder whether we can alter behavior so that the generation of rxl becomes unnecessary...

@abunashir
Copy link
Member

@abunashir ah yes you're right. I wonder whether we can alter behavior so that the generation of rxl becomes unnecessary...

I don't remember the whole dependency on the RXL now, but let me check on it soon and then I can get back to it, but that would definitely make it better.

ronaldtse pushed a commit to metanorma/ogcapi-processes that referenced this issue Oct 15, 2021
@abunashir
Copy link
Member

@ronaldtse: I was looking into this one - but couldn't exactly point to a specific reasoning. On top of that, looks like we are explicitly specifying that in couple of extensions, so I wonder if that's the expected behaviour 🤔

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
Abu Nashir
  
Low priority
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants