Github Not Fully Highlighting Diff about bisq-docs HOT 4 CLOSED

Today I reported this challenge to github. Waiting their reply. I'll post it here if any.

from bisq-docs.

Reply from Rachel, GitHub staff

Hey Francois,

Steps to reproduce at #23 (comment)

Thanks for writing in! It looks like you've run up against a limitation we put in place to keep our site performance up. We currently stop running word diffs on single lines that go past 512 characters, and that line seems to be over that. I'll definitely add your +1 for bumping that limit up though! Let me know if there's anything else I can help with in the meantime.

All the best,
Rachel
GitHub Support

from bisq-docs.

Thanks @Francewhoa, for solving the mystery!

Really hope GitHub does increase that 512 char limit, because that is effectively limiting writers to 512 char paragraphs—for those who subscribe to the one-line-per-paragraph approach as we do.

from bisq-docs.

@cbeams :) Yeah that limit is a party crasher for doc contributors. It also makes it harder for maintainers to review for approval pull request :( As you know documentation paragraphs often need to go over that limit. Simply because they are text visible to end-users, not line of codes, or in-line code comments visible to back-end software engineers. Also doc contributors need that full length for easy and quick automated doc spell checks, frequents updates. Plus a pleasant end-user experience when they read the doc on devices with different screen sizes with automated line brakes.

Until that limit is removed, for my future pull requests, I'm happy to try to use the pull request comment field to try to manually clarify what the propose pull request is about. I mean using this pull request as an example, which one of the following two options is easier for you when you review future doc pull requests?

Option 1: Diff location

There is a minor typo with the "to" word. The propose update is located into this sentence:

"This document is written to provide a clear..."

Option 2: Manual diff

There is a minor typo with the "to" word. I propose this:

Before
"This document is written to to provide a clear..."

After
"This document is written to provide a clear..."

Option 3: What else?

Do you have any other proposal to resolve this limit party-crasher challenge?

Option 1 is easier for me. How about u? Option 2 might be challenging if there are multiple propose edits within the same sentence.

from bisq-docs.