From 7692033f87b4c0326f655b7c73d361e6d318294a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mohammad Akhlaghi Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:01:45 +0000 Subject: Highlighting changes can now be toggled at run-time Until now, the core Maneage 'paper.tex' had a '\highlightchanges' macro that defines two LaTeX macros: '\new' and '\tonote'. When '\highlightchanges' was defined, anything that was written within '\new' became dark green (highlighting new things that have been added). Also, anything that was written in '\tonote' was put within a '[]' and became dark red (to show that there is a note here that should be addressed later). When '\highlightchanges' wasn't defined, anything within the '\new' element would be black (like the rest of the text), and the things in '\tonote' would not be shown at all. Commenting the '\newcommand{\highlightchanges}{}' line within 'paper.tex' (to toggle the modes above) would create a different Git hash and has to be committed. But this different commit hash could create a false sense in the reader that other things have also been changed and the only way they could confirm was to actually go and look into the project history (which they will not usually have time to do, and thus won't be able to trust the two modes of the text). Also, the added highlights and the note highlights were bundeled together into one macro, so you couldn't only have one of them. With this commit, the choice of highlighting either one of the two is now done as two new run-time options to the './project' script (which are passed to the Makefiles, and written into the 'project.tex' file which is loaded into 'paper.tex'). In this way, we can generate two PDFs with the same Git commit (project's state): one with the selected highlights and another one without it. This issue actually came up for me while implementing the changes here: we need to submit one PDF to the journal/referees with highlights on the added features. But we also need to submit another PDF to arXiv and Zenodo without any highlights. If the PDFs have different commit hashes, the referees may associate it with other changes in any part of the work. For example https://oadoi.org/10.22541/au.159724632.29528907 that mentions "Another version of the manuscript was published on arXiv: 2006.03018", while the only difference was a few words in the abstract after the journal complained on the abstract word-count of our first submission (where the commit hashes matched with arXiv/Zenodo). --- reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'reproduce/analysis/make') diff --git a/reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk b/reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk index 29a1ea0..de7b87f 100644 --- a/reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk +++ b/reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk @@ -54,11 +54,21 @@ $(mtexdir)/project.tex: $(mtexdir)/verify.tex echo "\input{tex/build/macros/$$t.tex}" >> $$projecttex done - # Add the necessary macro to include appendix or not. + # Possibly print the appendix in the final PDF. if [ x"$(noappendix)" = x1 ]; then echo "\newcommand{\noappendix}{}" >> $$projecttex fi + # Possibly highlight the '\new' parts of the text. + if [ x"$(highlightnew)" = x1 ]; then + echo "\newcommand{\highlightnew}{}" >> $$projecttex + fi + + # Possibly show the text within '\tonote'. + if [ x"$(highlightnotes)" = x1 ]; then + echo "\newcommand{\highlightnotes}{}" >> $$projecttex + fi + # The paper shouldn't be built. else echo -- cgit v1.2.1