-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Update API docs for PKI multi-issuer functionality #15238
Conversation
3b7dd43
to
810eb20
Compare
810eb20
to
bd36d00
Compare
bd36d00
to
1fb2577
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, this is a draft, and my nits are probably unhelpful - you'll fix them anyway, I'm sure.
I guess I'm a little concerned that we are throwing a lot at someone who probably doesn't want to deal with multiple issuers (at least at first). It would make a lot of sense to me to include a tiny issuer section, maybe:
*) Read Issuer (sample Default)
*) Import Issuer / Generate Issuer
*) Set Default Issuer
And then either include a jump directly to Roles (the Issuing certificate section), or put that section first, and put a larger "advanced issuer configuration" later.
It would be cool if Revoke Certificate was paired with reading the CRL.
``` | ||
|
||
## Read Certificate | ||
<a name="read-ca-certificate"></a> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we remove this, or what does this do? Nothing points to #read-ca-certificate
anymore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This allows bookmarks to the (existing, soon to be old) docs persist and link to the right thing in the new updated format. :-)
- [Sign Verbatim](#sign-verbatim) | ||
- [Tidy](#tidy) | ||
- [Tidy Status](#tidy-status) | ||
- [Notice About New Multi-Issuer Functionality](#notice-about-new-multi-issuer-functionality) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe I'm doing this wrong, but none of these links seem to work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you cd website && make
it should launch a Vercel server that'll let you view it at e.g., http://localhost:3000/api-docs/secret/pki
and the links definitely work for me. Maybe not all of them, but most of them definitely do and this one does.
I think GH's markdown rendering just doesn't do the linking the same as Vercel or maybe they don't render anchors for PR pages? Not sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- [Delete Key](#delete-key) | ||
- [Delete All Issuers and Keys](#delete-all-issuers-and-keys) | ||
- [Managing Authority Information](#managing-authority-information) | ||
- [List Roles](#list-roles) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
list roles is listed twice (line 29)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this was intentional to give a logical grouping of information (list/create/read/delete as allotted by the usage) per section. The first-most section contains all the information about it and later ones refer back.
6344dd2
to
ab2b027
Compare
This substantially restructures the PKI secret engine's docs for two purposes: 1. To provide an explicit grouping of APIs by user usage and roles, 2. To add all of the new APIs, hopefully with as minimal duplication as possible. Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <[email protected]>
- Add [1] links next to the DER/PEM format entries within various PKI response tables. These link to a new section explaining that the vault cli does not support DER/PEM response formats - Remove repetition of vault cli blurb in various description fields. - Fix up some typos
ab2b027
to
f075c47
Compare
Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <[email protected]>