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

[docsprint] map.on additional suggestions #9578

Closed

Conversation

colleenmcginnis
Copy link
Contributor

@colleenmcginnis colleenmcginnis commented Apr 16, 2020

Ref #9560

ℹ️ This PR is part of a larger effort to improve generated API documentation. It targets the docsprint-ds-map-on branch, which will merge into the major feature branch for this work.

@danswick I decided to commit my suggestions separately as to not mess up your branch if you disagree with my suggestions. 💁‍♀️ My suggestions include:

  • Adding a second example when the layerId param is optional.
  • Adding **Note:** when the layerId param is optional.
  • Adding **Important:** when the layerId param is required.
  • Attempting to clarify the difference between mouseover and mousemove, which are currently described using the same language. (We might need some clarification from @asheemmamoowala on this.)

cc @katydecorah

@danswick danswick changed the base branch from docsprint-ds-map-on to docsprint April 20, 2020 22:17
@danswick danswick marked this pull request as ready for review April 21, 2020 00:00
@danswick danswick changed the base branch from docsprint to master April 21, 2020 00:02
@danswick danswick changed the base branch from master to docsprint April 21, 2020 00:02
@danswick
Copy link
Contributor

excellent suggestions! i screwed up the order of events in The Great Merging, so I cherry picked your commit over to the doscprint branch: #9607.

@danswick danswick closed this Apr 21, 2020
@danswick danswick deleted the docsprint-ds-map-on-cmcg-suggestions branch April 21, 2020 00:12
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.

3 participants