Skip to content

Warn on and ignore duplicate footnote definitions #2681

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 30, 2025

Conversation

krishanjmistry
Copy link
Contributor

@krishanjmistry krishanjmistry commented Apr 29, 2025

Rework the footnote rendering logic to handle cases where the same footnote tag is defined multiple times in a document.

When multiple definitions of the same footnote tag are encountered:

  • a warning is logged
  • only the first definition for the tag is used for rendering
  • subsequent definitions for the tag are ignored

Fixes #2649

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: waiting on a review label Apr 29, 2025
@krishanjmistry krishanjmistry changed the title Rework footnote rendering to ignore subsequent definitions of the same tag Warn on and ignore duplicate footnote definitions Apr 29, 2025
@krishanjmistry krishanjmistry marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2025 11:01
@ehuss ehuss force-pushed the issue-2649-footnotes branch from 1c0a676 to ac0ff7c Compare April 30, 2025 13:21
ehuss and others added 3 commits April 30, 2025 06:36
@ehuss ehuss force-pushed the issue-2649-footnotes branch from ac0ff7c to 7e9be8d Compare April 30, 2025 13:39
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

This was referenced Apr 30, 2025
@krishanjmistry krishanjmistry deleted the issue-2649-footnotes branch April 30, 2025 18:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: waiting on a review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Duplicate footnote names cause incorrect rendering and numbering
3 participants