(main) Port fixes for maven-site breadcrumbs from v2.2.x #763 #774
+853
−166
Conversation
This file contains 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
abelsromero
changed the title
abelsromero
changed the title
abelsromero
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Thank you for opening a pull request and contributing to asciidoctor-maven-plugin!
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)
What is the goal of this pull request?
Port fixes for #763 from branch v2.2.x to main (v3.0.x).
Are there any alternative ways to implement this?
I found out
parser-doxia-moduleis going to need a new implementation different from v2.2.x 😞 .The later it is portable toI could refactor the fix into re-usable code shared in the "commons" module. To avoid users of theconverted-doxia-moduleonly.asciidoctor-maven-pluginpulling doxia dependencies, I added the requireddoxia-sink-apiasprovided, but I admit that's a quick-hack.Eventually, we'd need a "commons" only for site modules.
Are there any implications of this pull request? Anything a user must know?
No
Is it related to an existing issue?
Finally, please add a corresponding entry to CHANGELOG.adoc
I am adding this as a bug fix since it was present previously