Removed 'Azure' as deploy provider mention' #11116
Conversation
|
I'm not sure what correspondence this list was supposed to have with our specific deploy commands. For example we don't have a specific command to deploy to google cloud or aws those are instead available by using deploy providers that we do provide specific commands for. Maybe @thedavidprice, @cannikin or @ahaywood would be best placed to confirm what impression we are trying to give with this list? |
|
Ah. Yeah didn't think about checking others!! Hah. I focused on azure after searching for a user question about it. Screenshot of the full section for context:
|
|
I wonder if it would make more sense to update that list to include links out to the service (what it does now) and a link to instructions for each provider. (For my own reference: here's a link to the page screenshotted above) |
|
Hmmm...going through a blame, that whole section was written by me in one go, but I would have thought I'd only add providers we actually have But, I could see him wanting to add as many deploy hosts as we theoretically could deploy to...I believe Serverless.com would let you deploy to those, so I could see him wanting to see them listed explicitly (since serverless.com isn't itself a host, just tooling to get to multiple hosts). |
|
We can blend both approaches and move this one on. We can update the language to something like We could then reference baremetal as we already do. Finally, we could make a blurb about how "you are free take deployment into your own hands like any other react app and deploy on your own terms to any provider such as ... " What about including docker listing in our deploy section or with the baremetal mention? |
The docker option works for sure? Like to any server, or just fly.io maybe? |
|
|
||
| #### Accessibility | ||
|
|
||
| Redwood includes a couple of components to [aid screen readers](https://redwoodjs.com/docs/accessibility) in properly navigating your app. The `<RouteAnnouncement>` component tells a screen reader to read something aloud, even though it isn't visible in the browser. And the `<RouteFocus>` tells a reader to skip verbose navigation options at the top of a page and get to the content. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved "Accessibility" into the "Router" section, from below, because the transition sentence from the previous paragraph does not make sense leading into "Accessibility." See red line. Moving it up to the router section made the most sense out of the options I saw.
|
@cannikin requesting review - this should be good to go. I simply copied the deploy providers list from our deployment intro! I added the baremetal deploy note as a bullet to keep it in the providers group. Seemed to make sense to me. Also, I moved the "Accessibility" section up a few heading (see comment above) and made some grammatical-ish changes. |
|
ooh this doesn't make the same changes to the other version docs! :/ I can get to that at some point this week. |
|
@cannikin ok this PR should be good for a final review and merge.
|
|
@pantheredeye Getting an error from Prettier during the CI stuff...can you see if you can fix? 
|
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
|
@cannikin I think I have it corrected. |
|
Hmm, isn't that uploads doc live on the real site? Is it okay to delete in this PR? Or is that one "uploads" plural? |
|
The uploads plural is the correct doc. I think I made the singular upload doc the day I was reviewing for Danny. Sort of dirtied up my local codebase with it. I noticed it in another branch this weekend and then caught it in this one. |
|
Let me know what you think. I can nuke this branch and start over with a clean pr if you prefer. |
|
Looks good to me! |
Azure was mentioned as a deploy provider in Chapter 0, but we don't have a deploy command for it. This removes that mention. --------- Co-authored-by: Rob Cameron <[email protected]>
Azure was mentioned as a deploy provider in Chapter 0, but we don't have a deploy command for it. This removes that mention.