Glossary Corrections

[Kanegraffiti]

Removed numbering from the terms
Did Alphabetical order for terms
Made sure each term had a label that could be referenced
Edited two index files to include the glossary

This is related to issue #3426
Recreates changes from this closed PR with corrections from @sophie-bui

Please review here @WardLT

[WardLT]

A quick side note: no need to create a new PR for each set up changes. It's no problem that you have, but don't feel like you need to.

[WardLT]

Only a minor comment about the "Launcher." Everything else looks great 💯

[WardLT]

That change looks good, but it seems like there's a problem with duplicate labels. The run is failing because

Warning, treated as error:
/home/runner/work/parsl/parsl/docs/historical/changelog.rst:947:more than one target found for 'any' cross-reference 'DataFuture': could be :std:ref:`DataFuture:` or :py:class:`parsl.app.futures.DataFuture`

Does that error make sense to use? It sounds like we might need to pick a different name for the reference label for DataFuture in your glossary

[Kanegraffiti]

That change looks good, but it seems like there's a problem with duplicate labels. The run is failing because

Warning, treated as error:
/home/runner/work/parsl/parsl/docs/historical/changelog.rst:947:more than one target found for 'any' cross-reference 'DataFuture': could be :std:ref:`DataFuture:` or :py:class:`parsl.app.futures.DataFuture`

Does that error make sense to use? It sounds like we might need to pick a different name for the reference label for DataFuture in your glossary

I have changed the DataFuture label, I considered changing others to match but I am worried about introducing new errors

[benclifford]

I am worried about introducing new errors

if you get new errors, then you get new errors and then you fix them in another commit - that isn't something to be scared of. my PRs fail CI about 50% of the time. what matters is not having errors when this PR is merged to the master branch.

[Kanegraffiti]

I am worried about introducing new errors

if you get new errors, then you get new errors and then you fix them in another commit - that isn't something to be scared of. my PRs fail CI about 50% of the time. what matters is not having errors when this PR is merged to the master branch.

Thank you. I'll change the other labels now so they match

[sophie-bui]

@benclifford – do we need to update Kelechi's permissions in our repo so she can contribute to our docs? I saw your message in our hacker's channel, so I want to double-check.

UPDATE: no permissions update is required. An approved reviewer will need to update and merge it.

[benclifford]

Here's an error that is happening in the documentation build now: (click on the red x of parsl / mail test-suite 3.8 and scroll all the way to the bottom)

Warning, treated as error:
/home/runner/work/parsl/parsl/docs/userguide/glossary.rst:99:'any' reference target not found: .result()

That sounds like something at line 99 of glossary.rst being treated as a reference, around the text .result() that you maybe don't want treated as a reference.

[Kanegraffiti]

Here's an error that is happening in the documentation build now: (click on the red x of parsl / mail test-suite 3.8 and scroll all the way to the bottom)

Warning, treated as error:
/home/runner/work/parsl/parsl/docs/userguide/glossary.rst:99:'any' reference target not found: .result()

That sounds like something at line 99 of glossary.rst being treated as a reference, around the text .result() that you maybe don't want treated as a reference.

The .result() method in the Future definition has been changed to double backticks, which should render it as inline code instead

[Kanegraffiti]

We did it! Thank you for helping @sophie-bui @WardLT @benclifford

[Kanegraffiti]

Thank you for your detailed review, I really appreciate your help, time and effort. I am applying your corrections right now! I hope to get more feedback from you afterwards @danielskatz

[danielskatz]

Thank you for your detailed review, I really appreciate your help, time and effort. I am applying your corrections right now! I hope to get more feedback from you afterwards @danielskatz

Please ping me when you want me to review again.

[Kanegraffiti]

Thank you for your detailed review, I really appreciate your help, time and effort. I am applying your corrections right now! I hope to get more feedback from you afterwards @danielskatz

Please ping me when you want me to review again.

Please can you look at this again, I have made corrections and it's ready for your review

[danielskatz]

I've provided a few more comments. Also, I know @benclifford looked at this in terms of technically merging it, but it would be useful for him or @yadudoc or @kylechard to also review it for content.

[Kanegraffiti]

I've provided a few more comments. Also, I know @benclifford looked at this in terms of technically merging it, but it would be useful for him or @yadudoc or @kylechard to also review it for content.

I have implemented the latest feedback, thank you. When differentiating between Parallelism and Concurrency I used an analogy with a similar theme in both definitions and compared that in Parallelism definition. Does it look okay?

[danielskatz]

Yes, the concurrency vs parallelism does look ok to me now.

[danielskatz]

I still would like one more review of the content, however