bidict Bump docutils from 0.17.1 to 0.18.1 in /requirements

Bumps docutils from 0.17.1 to 0.18.1.

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.

Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:

@dependabot rebase will rebase this PR
@dependabot recreate will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
@dependabot merge will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
@dependabot squash and merge will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
@dependabot cancel merge will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
@dependabot reopen will reopen this PR if it is closed
@dependabot close will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
@dependabot ignore this major version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
@dependabot ignore this minor version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
@dependabot ignore this dependency will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)

Jul 01 '22 20:07 dependabot[bot]

Jul 01 '22 20:07 gitpod-io[bot]

Upgrading docutils is currently blocked on https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/10531 (as the comment says in requirements/docs.in). Leaving this PR open as a reminder to upgrade (and remove the pin) once the issue blocking this is fixed.

(This may also be blocked on changes in Furo, but AFAIK a tracking issue in Furo has not yet been created that we can link to / watch. CC @pradyunsg)

Jul 01 '22 20:07 jab

There’s nothing preventing a build from Furo’s end strictly — footnotes look slightly different, which… is fine?

Jul 01 '22 22:07 pradyunsg

Thanks for the quick reply, @pradyunsg!

Rather than "footnotes look slightly different", I think it'd be more accurate to say "footnotes look broken". Please take another peek at the "before" and "after" screenshots I posted in https://github.com/pradyunsg/furo/discussions/452 to see what I mean. Not only are footnotes no longer appearing on the same line as their corresponding footnote numbers, but worse, they're not even being indented consistently: Note how footnote 3 in the "after" screenshot is inexplicably not indented, while footnotes 1, 2, and 4 are indented. Based on this example, would you agree this goes beyond looking slightly different and really reaches "looking broken" territory?

If so, then I assume that additional changes would be necessary in Furo to fix this. But since I haven't been able to dig too deeply into this bug, maybe that's not actually true?

Thanks again for taking a look at this.

Jul 02 '22 16:07 jab

Quoting https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/450/?page=1#0624

Fixed in Docutils 0.19.

Great to see the fix has been released! @pradyunsg, does this help with testing any potentially required followup changes to Furo?

Jul 06 '22 13:07 jab

Looks like docutils is up-to-date now, so this is no longer needed.

Aug 06 '22 20:08 dependabot[bot]