Tutorial review learning

[moschmdt]

Reviewed the tutorials 5, 6, 7 and 8 - they should be in line with the word/pdf version.

I removed the WIP warning for those tutorials. Should we link to the old PDFs nonetheless?

The manual chapter has just some linting adjustments.

[garfieldnate]

Thank you for working on this!

• It looks like 5 still has a bunch of linting warnings that failed the build. Not sure if those prevent the site from building after merging.
• Yes, I would like to provide the PDF versions as a courtesy to those that want them. Longer-term, I'd like to generate the PDFs from this markdown source so that we don't have two versions floating around. The tutorials aren't modified much, so it's not as big an issue as it is with the manual.

[moschmdt]

I just added the admonitions plugin with some suggested default configuration to get rid of the HTML footnotes in the Markdown.

[moschmdt]

I just downloaded an example page as PDF via the print dialogue of the browser and it actually looks very reasonable. The links are also working "out-of-the-box".
Semantic Memory - Soar Home.pdf

Maybe a hint/ info point referencing the possibility would already be sufficient?

[garfieldnate]

That PDF does look great! I didn't realize mkdocs had such good print styling, but I suppose it makes sense.

The PDFs are distributed with Soar, so I would want to figure out a way to generate them automatically. Headless chrome or selenium or something. I tried wkhtmltopdf, but it ignored all styling and the output looked awful, so that possibility is eliminated. I think this is a good path, though.

I like the look of the admonitions, as well.

Part of the reason I marked all of these pages as "under construction" was because the images are not usable when the site is in dark mode. They either need a light background or to be reworked to update automatically for dark mode (the latter is a bit of a production).

[moschmdt]

Ah, that is unfortunate that the headless mode does not work.

For now, all modified files in this PR have valid images with either a white background or dynamic color switching. Should I revert the warning removal nonetheless or add an admonition providing a hint for the PDF printing possibility?

[garfieldnate]

rl-optrace.svg appears to be an invalid SVG (at least according to GitHub).

Yes, I would leave the admonition in for now; you can change it to be more specific about dark mode being an issue, if you like.

[moschmdt]

Do you know if there is a new command for watch --chunks --print? (Tutorial V: Planning and learning) I get the following error message in the debugger:

no such option: print

[garfieldnate]

When I put in watch --chunks I get Now printing when chunks fire., so maybe you just need to remove the --print.

GitHub still says that SVG file is malformed.

[moschmdt]

Interesting... Do you see some kind of error message since I don't get any warning? I just checked the local version in both light and dark mode. It appears to be fine for mkdocs.

[garfieldnate]

Actually I think the image is fine :D It shows an error in the commits view, but shows properly in the "Files Changed" view.

Is this ready merge?

[moschmdt]

Is this ready merge?

Yes!

[garfieldnate]

Great, thanks for the all work!