Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: split up steps into separate reference pages #3275

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: newdocs
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hiddeco
Copy link
Contributor

@hiddeco hiddeco commented Jan 14, 2025

Replacement for #3272 targeting newdocs.

This splits the single page with step documentation into multiple pages, accompanied by an auto-generated index.

As a follow-up, the previous "Promotion Step Reference" document will be turned into a broader "Promotion Template Reference" document and paired with a dedicated "Promotion Task Reference" page.

All pages have the same structure and headings, e.g. "Configuration", "Output" (where applicable), and "Examples". This is to ease navigation for the user.

@hiddeco hiddeco requested review from a team as code owners January 14, 2025 21:16
Copy link

netlify bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Deploy Preview for docs-kargo-io ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit aa43a00
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-kargo-io/deploys/67871d671258520008a8a81e
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-3275.docs.kargo.io
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (newdocs@5709087). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             newdocs    #3275   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   52.05%           
==========================================
  Files              ?      295           
  Lines              ?    26695           
  Branches           ?        0           
==========================================
  Hits               ?    13895           
  Misses             ?    12041           
  Partials           ?      759           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@krancour
Copy link
Member

I updated the relative URLs to exclude numbers. In some older configuration (it might have been with Docusaurus 2), we seemed to need them, but we no longer do.

| `checkout[].commit` | `string` | N | A specific commit to check out. Mutually exclusive with `branch`, `tag`, and `fromFreight=true`. If none of these is specified, the default branch will be checked out. |
| `checkout[].tag` | `string` | N | A tag to check out. Mutually exclusive with `branch`, `commit`, and `fromFreight=true`. If none of these is specified, the default branch will be checked out. |
| `checkout[].fromFreight` | `boolean` | N | Whether a commit to check out should be obtained from the Freight being promoted. A value of `true` is mutually exclusive with `branch`, `commit`, and `tag`. If none of these is specified, the default branch will be checked out. Default is `false`, but is often set to `true`. <br/><br/>__Deprecated: Use `commit` with an expression instead. Will be removed in v1.3.0.__ |
| `checkout[].fromOrigin` | `object` | N | See [specifying origins](#specifying-origins). <br/><br/>__Deprecated: Use `commit` with an expression instead. Will be removed in v1.3.0.__ |
Copy link
Member

@krancour krancour Jan 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All #specifying-origins are broken... but (I've just realized) they are in the existing docs as well. It seems that section was prematurely removed in the v1.1 docs. Need to go back to v1.0 to find it: https://release-1-0.docs.kargo.io/references/promotion-steps#specifying-origins

We could fix this or especially since it is only deprecated fields that reference this, we could leave it be or remove these links. I don't have any strong opinion.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This otherwise LGTM, so I'm approving and I am content with however you decide to deal with this (or not).

@hiddeco
Copy link
Contributor Author

hiddeco commented Jan 15, 2025

@krancour not sure about the relative URLs being an improvement, for a couple of reasons:

  1. When you rename a page (or file), you must find all relative "magic" paths that once matched the previous name. This is a step backward for people with a more intelligent IDE (like any IntelliJ one), which knows how to find the previous file reference and replace it with your new one.
  2. It is no longer possible to navigate the links through the source, on both GitHub and in my IDE.

If the primary concern is, "whenever I reorder files, I do not want to update references", I suggest we follow the actual advice from Docusaurus (see their warning here) and move the ordering to the front matter (as documented here).

@krancour
Copy link
Member

@hiddeco valid points. Let's revert my amendment.

(I'll also adjust #3281)

As to ordering through front matter, I'm less sure about that because it makes it much harder to understand the order just by looking at the file tree, which I think is beneficial.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants