Add TOC depth option #282
Add TOC depth option #282
Conversation
| @@ -243,6 +243,10 @@ def __init__(self, html4tags=False, tab_width=4, safe_mode=None, | |||
| assert isinstance(self.extras, dict) | |||
| if "toc" in self.extras and "header-ids" not in self.extras: | |||
| self.extras["header-ids"] = None # "toc" implies "header-ids" | |||
| if self.extras["toc"] is None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What exactly is if self.extras["toc"] is None checking for? Some testing on my own and it doesn't seem to catch if extras = {'toc': {}} or if extras=['toc']. This might need to be more robust. Maybe something like (pseudo):
default_toc_depth = 6
try:
self._toc_depth = self.extras["toc"].get("depth", default_toc_depth)
except TypeError:
self._toc_depth = default_toc_depth
What's the default depth in master branch right now? Is 6 an appropriate default?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe both cases you mention are actually are covered:
extras=['toc']-> at this point in the code,self.extrashas been coerced to a dictionary (there's even an assert on line 243)extras={'toc': {}}-> this will be caught by the call to.get(), which returns 6 if the dictionary doesn't contain the keydepth.
The check is for the case where the user supplied a list, in which case it will be converted by code above (lines 238/241) to a dict with all values set to None, or simply if the user passed extras={'toc': None}. I can still add exception-catching if you'd like, but I don't think it's necessary unless the user is passing strange values in the extras dict.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, good look, you're right. I made an assumption that it was still a possible list at that point. No change necessary there.
In regards to the default depth, where did 6 come from? In master is the depth just 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I've taken the convention that depth = maximum header level that will be included in the TOC. I believe 6 is the maximum header level, so setting the depth to 6 (or more) will just include all headers in the TOC.
|
Thanks for this :) Left some comments. |
|
Thank you again |
|
Yeah no problem, I needed this for a personal project and I didn't want to maintain a separate branch so it was pretty self-interested haha. |
As discussed in issue #277.