🤖 Store execution outputs in Outputs
#1903
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: a4d6245 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 13 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
agoose77
force-pushed
the
agoose77/feat-future-ast-outputs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b9aafa1 to
cec055e
Compare
agoose77
force-pushed
the
agoose77/feat-future-ast-outputs
branch
from
cec055e to
6870f57
Compare
|
Thoughts on a testing plan for this:
|
| @@ -136,8 +138,10 @@ describe('Test blockMetadataTransform', () => { | |||
| data: { key: 'value' }, | |||
| }, | |||
| [ | |||
| u('output', { identifier: 'my_label-output-0' }, 'We know what we are'), | |||
| u('output', { identifier: 'my_label-output-1' }, 'but know not what we may be.'), | |||
| u('outputs', { identifier: 'my_label-output' }, [ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be better to have this plural?
| u('outputs', { identifier: 'my_label-output' }, [ | |
| u('outputs', { identifier: 'my_label-outputs' }, [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha you anticipated my question regarding https://github.com/jupyter-book/mystmd/pull/1903/files#r1985269343
I used the same ID as before so that the output → outputs change is reflected in the referencing of existing Markdown files. However, I'd prefer it to read outputs. Thoughts?
| const outputsNode = select('outputs', block) as GenericNode | undefined; | ||
| if (outputsNode !== undefined && !outputsNode.identifier) { | ||
| // Label outputs node | ||
| outputsNode.identifier = `${block.identifier}-output`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that these ID changes may need to be taken into account in the upgrade/downgrade script for thebe to continue working.
This PR changes our internal representation of cell outputs so that they are children of the
Outputsnode.It accompanies #1900.
Tasks