-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 821
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: add Metrics documentation to project #3360
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3360 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.25% 93.24% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 247 247
Lines 7344 7344
Branches 1511 1511
==========================================
- Hits 6849 6848 -1
- Misses 495 496 +1
|
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.
style: fix markdown double blank line
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.
style: fix markdown linting issue
426f1ed
to
8ccc7cf
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.
LGTM, thank you for the work!
Co-authored-by: Chengzhong Wu <[email protected]>
@weyert this looks good to me but can you open the PR on the website repo? I think the overall project is trying to move documentation to the website when reasonable |
@cartermp may have an opinion there. Last I heard they were using submodules for some languages too. What I don't want is a situation where some docs are here and some are in the website repo. |
These should be on the website long-term. My comment on the past PR was that if it's easier to get initial feedback here, then that's good, but all end-user documentation should live on the website. So if this looks like it's good enough for folks, then I would recommend we either:
|
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.
LGTM % some nits. Thanks for working on this. 🙂
Sorry for taking so long with the review, was out of office for a while.
Co-authored-by: Marc Pichler <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marc Pichler <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marc Pichler <[email protected]>
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.
I have added the suggested changes
c76991f
to
b6f5963
Compare
Updated the PR to use the |
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.
Looks good 🙂 🎉
Thank you for working on this 🙂
So it sounds like the motion will be:
I've no strong opinion about what happens in this repo, but we'll want the docs in the website and in the outlined structure at some point. |
@cartermp I'm not sure how other languages manage their documentation with the website project. Is there any procedure we can adopt in the JS repo too? I'd be happy to help to alleviate the burden of the website maintainers if this documentation can be moved to the website repo. |
Perhaps I confused things with this comment by not advocating to move the PR to the website repo in the first place. Since Metrics docs don't exist yet, if it's faster to get feedback here then a PR here is probably best, but the end state would be to live in the docs. That was my understanding based on conversation in PRs. All end-user non-api-reference JS docs live in the docs/website repo today, as is also the case for all other languages now aside from Go (which we're proposing to move soon too). These docs will also need to be changed to meet the outline laid out here (linked to from the metrics docs issue on this repo). To be honest, I'm not sure why there's been confusion here. |
I agree end state should be docs on website. PR was open here to get feedback.
We can begin that process now as I believe everyone is happy with the state of these docs. I'll probably merge this so that there is something while the website docs are worked on but will remove these in another PR when that is done. Does that seem reasonable?
Good to know. Thanks for the link. |
Yep, makes sense! I think that's a good process |
Lint expected to fail markdown link check until the sdk metrics docs are published. The link is correct |
Which problem is this PR solving?
Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.
Fixes # (issue)
Short description of the changes
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration
Checklist: