format: syntax of `in-process` anotation should be `*(:construction: in process)*`

[davorpa]

What does this PR do?

Improve repo

For resources

Description

The most common syntax seen for each resource annotations across files are *(bla bla bla)* where the kursive format wraps parenthesis

Regex: ((\*[^\*]+\*)|(_[^_]+_))

So:

• change from (:construction: *in process*) to *(:construction: in process)*
• fixes some of resources with this annotation but without it representative icon (*-id.md).
• translate note text there where there was context previously.

Checklist:

• [x] Read our contributing guidelines.
• [x] Include author(s) and platform where appropriate.
• [x] Put lists in alphabetical order, correct spacing.
• [x] Add needed indications (PDF, access notes, under construction).
• [x] Used an informative name for this pull request.

Follow-up

• Check the status of GitHub Actions and resolve any reported warnings!

[davorpa]

Conflicts are with #7033 because this PR alter their merge hunk.

Apply new notation format to theirs too.

[davorpa]

Conflicts are with a recent commit:

• #7034

Preserve both sides to homogenize titles, creators and access notes

[eshellman]

what's motivating this change? the instructions say to use (:construction: *in process*) and this formulation outnumbers your proposed formulation 71 to 15 have you checked the parser (free-programming-books-parser) to see what it does with the two formulations?

[davorpa]

what's motivating this change? the instructions say to use (:construction: *in process*) and this formulation outnumbers your proposed formulation 71 to 15 have you checked the parser (free-programming-books-parser) to see what it does with the two formulations?

Even with comments, parser logic is a bit confusing not having schemas or testcases to check against.

https://github.com/EbookFoundation/free-programming-books-parser/blob/5eaf00bfd861856a85b2ba6f2d2aa282fab55a69/index.js#L54-L111

In the code... ¿what would be the difference between access notes and notes? E.g. archived vs in process if both have an icon. I think all means the same 😟

Give me some instructions to don't break anything

[eshellman]

I see, so this is meant to align archived and in process? We'll need to play around with this / look at the resulting json.

[davorpa]

I see, so this is meant to align archived and in process? ...

Yes, sir. Although I also see some of LeanPub notes wrapping all in kursive and others only some parts. Sure there are more data gardening to do :worried: to our oldies eyes.

Since access notes have cardinality of 0-1 and notes 0-n, I propose merge all in the same collection to simplify logic. It's posible? It's great? I don't know, too much newbie to understand the scope.

If someone ask me for the full normalized format I response with:

TITLE_LINK - CREATOR1, ..., CREATORn (FORMAT1, ..., FORMAT2..n?+LINK?) (COURSE_PLATFORM?) *(NOTE1)*... *(NOTEn)*

where AST tokens are:

• TITLE_LINK: Normal title + year/version for historical books + main link
• FORMAT1: main format, link in the resource title
• FORMATn?+LINK?: rest of formats as multiformat syntax with optional links
• CREATOR: ROLE? CREATOR_FULLNAME
• ROLE: optional, not necesary for principal authors. Values: trl.: (traducer)... https://loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html
• meaningfull notes have a emoji prefix. E.g. archived, in_process...

... We'll need to play around with this / look at the resulting json.

How to play with the parser pointing to my forked repo instead of against the upstream?

[eshellman]

I will work on this, but probably not till next week

[davorpa]

There are new addings in

• #7082

Remember replace them with the new format if both PRs are accepted

[davorpa]

Conflicts are with #7065 with moves Vim section to -subjects.md file.

Remember in that file apply new formatting on resolve conficts

[github-actions[bot]]

Oh no 😟! Conflicts have been found.

Please 🙏, take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request before we can evaluate it again.

Thanks in advance for your effort and patience ❤️!

[github-actions[bot]]

Oh no 😟! Conflicts have been found.

Please 🙏, take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request before we can evaluate it again.

Thanks in advance for your effort and patience ❤️!

[github-actions[bot]]

Linter failed, fix the error(s):

free-programming-books/books/free-programming-books-subjects.md
833:1-850:100  warning  Incorrect number of blank lines between last section and next heading  blank-lines-1-0-2  remark-lint

[github-actions[bot]]

Linter failed, fix the error(s):

free-programming-books/books/free-programming-books-subjects.md
833:1-850:100  warning  Incorrect number of blank lines between last section and next heading  blank-lines-1-0-2  remark-lint