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

docs: added mathjax for rendering tex format as imgmath needs latex engine to run #316

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 20, 2024

Conversation

fnhirwa
Copy link
Contributor

@fnhirwa fnhirwa commented Mar 20, 2024

Before submitting

  • Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? (no need for typos and docs improvements)
  • Did you make sure to update the docs?
  • Did you write any new necessary tests?

What does this PR do?

Adding support to render latex math formulas, changing from imgmath to mathjax as imgmath requires latex engine to run.

related to Lightning-AI/pytorch-lightning#19633

PR review

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.

Did you have fun?

Make sure you had fun coding 🙃

@mergify mergify bot requested a review from Borda March 20, 2024 08:30
@fnhirwa fnhirwa marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2024 08:33
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70%. Comparing base (cbbea35) to head (a5084e4).

Additional details and impacted files
@@         Coverage Diff         @@
##           main   #316   +/-   ##
===================================
  Coverage    70%    70%           
===================================
  Files         2      2           
  Lines       403    403           
===================================
  Hits        284    284           
  Misses      119    119           

@fnhirwa
Copy link
Contributor Author

fnhirwa commented Mar 20, 2024

@Borda Just a quick question:

I'm trying to build docs from this repository, but tutorials seem to fail on the main branch, when I try from the pytorch-lightning repository where this is added as a submodule the changes seem to work there, does it mean that if we update the submodule? I can see that the submodule branch is publication https://github.com/Lightning-AI/pytorch-lightning/blob/fadd2fccdc49e20d64db37fe3654116b4f1b9e49/.gitmodules#L4 updating the submodule will make tutorials render properly regarding math formulas.

Does this mean that the PR has to be merged to the publication branch?

Just an update built docs from the publication branch and it seems that it is the one we have to update. With your approval we will now close this PR and look at this one #317 on publication branch

@Borda
Copy link
Member

Borda commented Mar 20, 2024

Just an update built docs from the publication branch and it seems that it is the one we have to update. With your approval we will now close this PR and look at this one #317 on publication branch

yes when you clone this repo recursively you shall get the right branch

@fnhirwa
Copy link
Contributor Author

fnhirwa commented Mar 21, 2024

https://github.com/Lightning-AI/pytorch-lightning/blob/fadd2fccdc49e20d64db37fe3654116b4f1b9e49/.gitmodules#L4
I did the same and got the

Then I think these changes have to be made on the publication branch as the git submodule is pointing to that branch from the PyTorch-lightning repo.

@Borda Borda force-pushed the main branch 2 times, most recently from d4acf6f to ac8f7ba Compare July 19, 2024 21:12
@Borda Borda added the bug / fix Something isn't working label Jul 20, 2024
@Borda Borda enabled auto-merge (squash) July 20, 2024 08:25
@mergify mergify bot removed the has conflicts label Jul 20, 2024
@Borda Borda merged commit 956461c into Lightning-AI:main Jul 20, 2024
14 of 15 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants