Arch Linux

Thanks for the report, Keith! Could you please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "all formatting stopped working on the comments table"?

Sure Lukas, if you check that link you will notice that all markdown formatting is tripped from the page. All code blocks, bold formatting, etc is displayed as a simple <p> tag without anything other tag or visual formatting.

Looking at my comment on that page, it looks as though the closing </ul> actually encompasses what should be a code block for the example I posted [yay -S $(pacman -Qqo '/usr/lib/perl5/5.30')].

Can you point me directly to a comment where you think bold and/or code formatting has been stripped? None of the comments I looked at in this page have that formatting (even though many should have used it) and I just added code block formatting to one of the comments (PhilipC on 2020-06-26 16:40) manually to confirm that still works.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/shutter#comment-754546

The code formatting is in theory applied due to four-space indents, immediately after the "*" list bullets. But this four-space indent is removed, wrapped in a <p>, and contained within the second bullet point.

I *think* this might be the rules of markdown, though (what does an indent mean, anyway?). FWIW, I just always use ``` fenced code.

EDIT: yes, this presumably counts as a nested list.

Hmm, I could have sworn that a number of the comments on that page (those outlining pacman output) had code block formatting.

I have modified my own comment to remove the list items and fix my code block - but none of the other comments are showing code block formatting...

example : https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/shutter/#comment-753041

That's because those don't use fenced code blocks (preferred) *or* four-space indents. If people don't add markdown formatting characters to their comments, then their comments will not be formatted as markdown.

There are comments on page 2 that use code block formatting. My guess is that you saw one of them previously (on page 1), then that comment moved to page 2 when you added your comment.

Still good that you filed a report though, reporting too much is better than reporting too little. I guess this can be closed now or is there anything else we'd like to address?

lol yes, the second page is probably what I was looking at in another tab now that I check it.

My own mal-formatting problem probably threw me.
Safe to close, thanks.