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

Allow multiple references to the same footnote #40

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jsma
Copy link
Contributor

@jsma jsma commented Sep 8, 2022

This is an attempt to fix #25

At present, this only ensures that each linked reference will have a unique HTML id so that the back links on the footnotes will work (by linking to the first reference). This does not yet include UI changes to expose links to each individual reference in the content but there is a proposed approach in #25 (comment).

@zerolab
Copy link
Member

zerolab commented Jul 28, 2023

@jsma I know this is quite late, but would you be able to add a test or two for this?
Also, can you rebase on main. We switched to ruff for a bunch of linting and I suspect that may be introducing a conflict

@jsma jsma force-pushed the support-multiple-references-to-footnotes branch 2 times, most recently from d7f9015 to 75ec95f Compare July 30, 2023 03:47
Previously every link in the rich text for the same footnote had the same `id` attribute, which breaks the "Back to content" link (or just always returns the user to the first reference).
This now generates a unique `id` for each footnote reference and updates the `footnotes.html` template to generate unique links back to each reference in the content.
@jsma jsma force-pushed the support-multiple-references-to-footnotes branch from 75ec95f to 6990138 Compare July 30, 2023 03:58
@jsma
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsma commented Jul 30, 2023

I completely reworked my initial implementation which required some force pushes.

I don't know what planet I was on when I first did this but I fixed the <sup> to be inside the <a> rather than vice versa. This does introduce changes to the footnotes.html template, since that was the only way I could test that unique id attributes were generated (I opted to use plain 1-based index integers for each reference per this comment). I realize folks may be opinionated on this but at the end of the day, it's a template that can be overridden.

Sorry for any previous CI noise. I added Python 3.11 type hints out of habit, which didn't fail when I ran tox locally against all environments, I guess because it was running in a 3.11-based virtual environment (I'm not super familiar with tox, I maintain websites vs reusable packages so I'm only family with standard Django tests).

@@ -38,19 +38,47 @@ def setUp(self):
[
{
"type": "paragraph",
"value": f'<p>This is a paragraph with a footnote. <footnote id="{uuid}">1</footnote></p>',
"value": (
f'<p>This is a paragraph with a footnote. <footnote id="{uuid}">[{uuid[:6]}]</footnote></p>'
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The [{uuid[:6]}] bit isn't strictly required since FIND_FOOTNOTE_TAG doesn't care what's between <footnote></footnote> but I opted to make it an accurate representation of what is actually stored in the database.

Copy link
Member

@zerolab zerolab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It took quite some time to get to review this. Sorry about that.
Left a few thoughts and suggestions for consistency and some simplification

@@ -37,17 +40,28 @@ def replace_footnote_tags(self, value, html, context=None):
page = new_context["page"]
if not hasattr(page, "footnotes_list"):
page.footnotes_list = []
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can do away with footnotes_list in favour of the new footnotes_references.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are two different things. footnotes_list is the list of the actual Footnote objects to be rendered at the bottom of the rendered page, and footnotes_references is a dict that maps a Footnote's UUID to a list of all of the references found in the rich text blocks, so that jump links back to each individual reference can be rendered.

I didn't have any better idea of how to make the Footnote objects aware of the one or more references contained in the rich text blocks. This is why I made the goofy template tag so I could at least do dict lookups using the UUID in the template to fetch the references.

I'm working on getting this rebased on main now that the custom template PR was merged.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, that makes sense. I think some additional comments would be helpful then, and perhaps some type hinting, then there will be no ambiguity. Thank you

"""
if hasattr(value, "footnotes_references"):
return value.footnotes_references.get(footnote_uuid, [])
return []
Copy link
Member

@zerolab zerolab Apr 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure we need this. if we drop footnotes_list, we can update the template to check for page.footnotes_references and tweak the loops accordingly

# 0-based) and if it's the second link to the first footnote, it will be "footnote-source-1-1", etc.
# This ensures the ids are unique throughout the page and allows for the template to generate links from
# the footnote back up to the distinct references in the content.
link_id = f"footnote-source-{index}-{len(page.footnotes_references[footnote_uuid])}"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion: keep indexes consistent. for regular users 1-1, 1-2 etc make more sense than 1-0. 1-1

@zerolab
Copy link
Member

zerolab commented Oct 18, 2024

uff, this clashes a bit with #70
Could you rebase again @jsma then I can do a final test, re-review and merge in.
Sorry it took so long

@jsma
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsma commented Oct 18, 2024

No worries. Per #40 (comment) I started working on this a couple weeks back (unfortunately not a simple rebase). I'm up against several professional and personal deadlines at the moment but hope to finish it up later next week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Issues with multiple references to the same footnote
2 participants