Change from default to one: [lint-ordered-list-marker-value one]

[lsgunn-teleport]

The linter was throwing warnings for numbered steps like this:
116:1-116:69 warning Marker should be 3, was 1
118:1-120:84 warning Marker should be 4, was 1

That's because the docs engine uses the lint-ordered-list-marker-value plugin (GitHub) to enforce numbering, and the default is ordered (https://www.npmjs.com/package/remark-lint-ordered-list-marker-value#api).

However, the standard process is to use "1." in Markdown files for auto-numbering. This PR changes this line:
["lint-ordered-list-marker-value", "one"]

Change to single per the recommendation in the API doc:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/remark-lint-ordered-list-marker-value#api

Ran yarn markdown-lint.
⚠ 656 warnings
Changes made in 14.x are in these PRs:
gravitational/teleport#29143
gravitational/teleport#29094
gravitational/teleport#29093
gravitational/teleport#29086

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jul 13, 2023 8:52pm

[ptgott]

This looks good, though we should hold off on merging until we fix the linter violations in gravitational/teleport. According to yarn markdown-lint there are 655 warnings across all docs versions.

[alexfornuto]

Resolves #164

[lsgunn-teleport]

There's a bit of a chicken/egg problem. None of the PRs to fix the issues can pass the current linter when modified until this PR is merged. I think I have most of the fixes queued up to follow this in cascading fashion (with backports to the older versions of files.
@alexfornuto, what do you think?

[alexfornuto]

@alexfornuto, what do you think?

IIRC the ooo is to merge the linter fix first, then re-run the tests on these PRs to merge them. But come to think of it, since no one PR has all the changes, none of them will pass (assuming the linter will at that point only allow 1-type lists). In that case, I'd pick one of these PRs and merge the rest into it, then once the docs PR is merged, re-run the tests and merge on that mega-pr.

[lsgunn-teleport]

okay, that's a good suggestion. The batch PRs are consolidated. Now, if you approve, I'll merge this change then get the other updates in a follow-on.

[lsgunn-teleport]

I think all of the fixes are in and conflicts are resolved 🤞. Running yarn markdown-lint on the branch with the linter change shows no issues found.
content/14.x/docs/pages/server-access/rbac.mdx: no issues found
content/14.x/docs/pages/upcoming-releases.mdx: no issues found
✨ Done in 23.63s.
@alexfornuto, are we ready to pull the trigger on the linter change?

[ptgott]

@lsgunn-teleport Once we backport the content changes, we'll be good to go to merge!

[alexfornuto]

@ptgott all the backports are pre-created and approved. If everyone's confident, I think it's time to

[ptgott]

Still getting a lot of "Marker should be" warnings after switching to this branch and running yarn git-update:

$ yarn markdown-lint |& grep "Marker should be" | wc -l
     612

[lsgunn-teleport]

@ptgott @alexfornuto
To properly test this, switch to the following branches:
LG/backport-29143-branch/v11
LG/backport-29143-branch/v12
afornuto/backport-29143-branch/v13
LG/lint-numbering-4-14x
LG/change-ordered-list-to-one

After these branches are your current environment, you shouldn't see any warnings.