support Creoleparser macro=include (BB-8652)

Issue #7459 wontfix
Tom Roche
created an issue

summary: your wiki engine (Creoleparser) supports an <<include>> macro (per this source which renders to this page). Please support that macro in the bitbucket wiki.


I have a number of code repositories (e.g., this) which are subsets of a larger thesis project. I wish to create a super-repo for thesis deliverables (e.g., articles, posters in LaTeX) that will point to and include items from, e.g., the code repos. I would also like to "rough out" those deliverables using the wiki (e.g., for communicating with my committee) rather than doing everything in LaTeX from the beginning, and communicating via large PDFs. This raises two problems, in order of increasing severity (as perceived by me):

  1. How to do interproject links? Unfortunately, bitbucket's Creole engine does not seem to support interproject links using the <<file>> syntax. Fortunately, I can just use the [[]] syntax and fully-qualified URIs (as in the next item in this list): not as clean (and I may eventually do an FR issue for interproject links), but HTML-style links will work for now.
  2. How to compose large wiki documents from smaller ones? For {version control, revision management} I would much prefer to be able to create files with smaller, more homogenous chunks of text (e.g., discussion of a specific model input) and include them in a larger, templated document. Hence I was excited to see the use of the <<include>> macro in the Creoleparser cheatsheet/demo source which renders as desired. However when I recreate the Creoleparser cheatsheet/demo source in my wiki, it does not render as desired: rather, the macro text renders literally, in monospace.

Given that Creoleparser is your wiki engine (per this page), and that Creoleparser supports <<include>>, I'm hoping it would be relatively easy to provide <<include>> on bitbucket. Note that I do not currently need the <<include-raw>> or <<include-source>> macros, though I can see how they would be useful (esp for your technical writers).

Comments (2)

  1. Log in to comment