[Sphinx] [Automation] Make sure Issue -> PR conversion of tables is correct

[felix91gr]

In the two CERT-C ports of guidelines relating to Shifts over integer types, the table conversion from the original Markdown to Sphinx / RST didn't work well.

The PRs have since been fixed by hand. Regardless, here are the two pairs of issues and PRs that I'm talking about:

• [Coding Guideline]: Subset Guideline for CERT C, INT34-C: Do not shift an expression by a negative number of bits or by greater than or equal to the number of bits that exist in the operand #156
  • ==> [auto-pr] #156: [Coding Guideline]: Subset Guideline for CERT C, INT34-C: Do not shift an expression by a negative number of bits or by greater than or equal to the number of bits that exist in the operand #180
• [Coding Guideline]: Defect Guideline for CERT C, INT34-C: Do not shift an expression by a negative number of bits or by greater than or equal to the number of bits that exist in the operand #174
  • ==> [auto-pr] #174: [Coding Guideline]: Defect Guideline for CERT C, INT34-C: Do not shift an expression by a negative number of bits or by greater than or equal to the number of bits that exist in the operand #181

And here's an illustration of how the table looked in the original text:

  | **Compilation Mode** | **`0 <= M < N`** | **`M < 0`**         |     **`N <= M`**    |
  |:--------------------:|:----------------:|:---------------------:|:-------------------:|
  | Debug                | Shifts normally  | Panics              | Panics              |
  | Release              | Shifts normally  | Shifts by `M mod N` | Shifts by `M mod N` |

CC @x0rw lemme know if there's something I can do to start improving the table conversion (maybe we can use another conversion library?)

[felix91gr]

PS: I should've grabbed a copy of what the automation generated, but after the manual fix, those commits have been lost to the ether (git commit --amend)

[MarcosBorgesPhD]

Hey @felix91gr @PLeVasseur, is there anything I can do to help move this issue forward? Just checking: are we already using the new system, and this is no longer relevant? Happy to help however I can!

[felix91gr]

@MarcosBorgesPhD to the second question: I think so. I'll let Pete confirm - I believe we're using the new system altogether and this is no longer a problem. But I'm not 100% on that.

CC Marcos' comment on #211 (comment) : the same answer should apply to both.

Lemme know what you think, Pete.

[PLeVasseur]

Yep, @felix91gr is right; this is handled and we're onto the new system.