feat: link pages to GitHub source

[mrienstra]

Addresses #158

Tested locally:

... In this case, the link from https://docs.activitywatch.net/en/latest/introduction.html leads to https://github.com/ActivityWatch/docs/blob/master/src/introduction.rst

---

Important

Adds GitHub source linking to documentation pages by configuring html_context in conf.py.

• Behavior:
  • Adds html_context in conf.py to enable linking pages to GitHub source.
  • Links point to ActivityWatch/docs repository on master branch.
• Configuration:
  • Sets display_github, github_user, github_repo, github_version, and conf_py_path in html_context for Sphinx RTD theme.

^{This description was created by for b60375c. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to b60375c in 1 minute and 36 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 18 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/conf.py:185

• Draft comment:
  Ensure 'conf_py_path' accurately reflects the docs location relative to the repo root.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a specific configuration path is accurate. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or identify a clear issue with the code. It falls under the category of asking the author to double-check something, which is against the rules.

2. src/conf.py:189

• Draft comment:
  Confirm that 'github_version' ('master') is the correct branch; update if transitioning to 'main' or another branch.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention regarding the branch name. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or to double-check things. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written.

3. src/conf.py:185

• Draft comment:
  If GitHub linking is desired for themes other than sphinx_rtd_theme, consider adding similar settings in their configuration branches.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% The comment says "consider adding similar settings in their configuration branches" which is speculative and suggestive rather than pointing out a definite issue. It uses the word "consider" which makes it a suggestion rather than identifying a clear problem. The THEME_BOOK branch already has GitHub integration configured (as shown in the evidence), just using different configuration keys appropriate for that theme. The comment doesn't identify a bug or clear issue - it's more of a "you might want to think about this" type of comment. This violates the rule about not making speculative comments and not commenting unless there's clearly a code change required. The comment might be trying to ensure consistency across themes, which could be valuable. Perhaps the author intentionally only added this to the RTD theme because that's the one being used (html_theme is set to "sphinx_rtd_theme" on line 156), and the THEME_BOOK branch already has its own GitHub configuration. While consistency could be valuable, the comment is still speculative ("consider") and doesn't identify a concrete problem. The THEME_BOOK branch already has GitHub integration configured appropriately for that theme. The comment doesn't provide clear evidence that something is wrong or missing - it's just suggesting the author "consider" something, which violates the rules. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative (uses "consider"), doesn't identify a clear code issue, and the other theme branch already has appropriate GitHub configuration. The comment is more of a suggestion to think about something rather than pointing out a definite problem requiring a code change.

Workflow ID: wflow_ruBPmF76WxkXZDsc

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}