No Netlify PR preview for this edition — reviewers have no rendered page to check

What is missing

This is the only edition in the lecture-python-programming series without a Netlify PR preview. The English source, .fa and .fr all deploy one per pull request; this repository's ci.yml has no Netlify step, and gh api repos/.../actions/secrets returns no NETLIFY_SITE_ID here, where .fa and .fr both have one.

Why it matters here specifically

Translation review depends on reading rendered pages. A reviewer working through a sync PR in .fa or .fr can open the preview and see the lecture as a reader will; here they can only read the diff.

It has already cost us twice in the last day:

• #80 — the language switcher plus five URL fixes — merged on weaker evidence than its .fa and .fr counterparts. Both of those were verified against a real deploy preview; this one could only be checked with a local build and a passing CI run.
• #81 — the bump to theme 0.21.0 — carries a documented layout change at 1024–1499px viewports, exactly the kind of change that wants a rendered page. There is nothing to look at.

What is needed

Two halves, and the first is the blocker:

1. A Netlify site for this repository, and its NETLIFY_SITE_ID as a repo secret. NETLIFY_SITE_ID is per-site and set at repo level — .fa and .fr each carry their own — so it cannot be inherited from the org. This step needs someone with Netlify and repo-admin access.
2. The workflow step in ci.yml. Small, and copyable from a sibling.

One decision to make first

The series currently uses two different mechanisms, so this should follow whichever is intended as the standard rather than adding a third data point:

.fr is the most recently set up of the three and uses the QuantEcon-maintained wrapper, which suggests that is the newer house pattern — but it is worth confirming rather than inferring from one data point. Note also that the .fr preview posts a PR comment rather than a commit status, so it does not appear in gh pr checks; whichever is chosen, that difference is worth knowing.

Happy to write the ci.yml half once the site and secret exist and the mechanism is settled.

Compare the workflow steps in ci.yml with the sibling .fa and .fr repositories, including their Netlify action and NETLIFY_SITE_ID secret setup. First confirm which preview mechanism is the intended standard; then, once the site and repo secret exist, add the ci.yml step. Done means a pull request produces a rendered Netlify preview that reviewers can open.