Hi Austin, Thanks for working on this.
The division of the docs (between pulpcore and each plugin) requires prior > knowledge and is not well communicated. Based on the consistency, the > developers have a shared understanding of which features should be > documented in pulpcore, and which topics are owned by the plugin. In my > opinion, most of the documentation on pulpcore is in the right place. The > Plugin docs are off to a good start by covering each major feature with > quickstart-style guides. Pulcore and each plugin's docs need to include > more specific information, which should be covered by the REST API docs. > This division can be very helpful to assure that we are writing tests for features in proper places - avoiding regression in the right pulp component. Right now we are testing: 1. pulpcore features 2. pulpcore features that require a plugin in order to be tested. We are currently using the pulp_file [0] to test those pulpcore features 3. plugin features Since tests live in different repos, we do our best to put the tests in the proper repository. But pulp_file does not exercise all features from pulpcore. What are the other feautres form pulpcore that we are not testing that require a different plugin? The suggested documentaiton division will help find those gaps, and for users later on, it will help to know how to report a bug with the right component. https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/tree/master/pulpcore/tests/functional/api/using_plugin On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:26 PM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Austin, > Thank you for pulling this all together and sharing it out. > > 2 thoughts: > 1. What is the difference btween ln 34 & 127 of the [0] etherpad? Looks > like a repeat to me. > 2. I'd like to hear more about this idea of not being able to distinguish > if a feature is documented in pulpcore or a plugin. Who is the audience for > this document? If it is the user, I would dig a little deeper question as > assumption that a user should have to know where it's documented. I would > think if I really do need to know, then I'm looking for different, more > general, high level information about the feature. If I'm a user of a > specific plugin then I'm looking for how this feature works for a specific > plugin and so therefore we might be able to re-use details - but what if > this plugin decided not to use this feature or customized it somehow. > Granted I think we need to make this super easy to document if a plugin is > using a feature in a straightforward way but do we need to make it > customizable or have additional info specific to a plugin? In order to not > make suggest a large change, I'd say, why not allow users to find the > feature details within the plugin docs? > > -Robin > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:32 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The Pulp community is beginning our drive to improve the user docs for >> Pulp 3. >> >> Docs work is tracked with the redmine tags [Pulp 3, Documentation] and >> can be viewed from the query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=128 >> <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=128>. (Note that the query is for >> "Documentation" OR "Pulp3", so shows more issues than we need to focus on >> here.) >> >> *Action Required:* >> Please have a look at the goals and the issues mentioned in "high >> priority work" section. >> >> If you have some extra time, please review some of the issues in the >> query or tag other issues you think should be included. There are a lot of >> issues, so it will take a focused effort from multiple people to tackle. >> >> *Work begun:* >> I've started by reading over our existing documentation for pulpcore. >> This etherpad was used for organizing and compiling issues. [0] >> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/ >> >> *Docs Push Goals*: >> >> - Address OSAS Feedback >> https://pulpproject.org/2018/09/17/pulp-community-health-audit/ >> >> >> - Add quickstarts >> - make pups visible on pulpproject.org >> - community visible calendar >> - Collaborative effort coordinated via Redmine >> - File issues for documentation gaps >> - Close irrelevant/dupes/already-done issues >> - Burn down >> >> >> *High Priority Work:* >> From the review below, 2 important changes should be addressed early in >> the docs push. These issues would benefit from feedback, please review and >> comment! >> >> - Explicitly define which features will be documented by pulpcore, >> and which will be documented by each plugin >> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4626 >> - The division criteria (discussed on the issue) needs to be more >> concrete >> - Publish better REST API documentation for pulpcore >> - Publish the live-api docs (many options): >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4636 >> - Document how to ^ for plugin writers: >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4637 >> >> >> *State of the docs, and what can be improved:* >> The docs appear to be in pretty good shape, but have some work left to do. >> >> The content of the current docs is mostly strong and concise [biased by >> familiarity]. The organization is fine, though some clean-up would improve >> readability, and clarity of the left-bar main divisions. Isolated problems >> are mentioned in the read-through notes on the planning etherpad. [0] >> >> The division of the docs (between pulpcore and each plugin) requires >> prior knowledge and is not well communicated. Based on the consistency, the >> developers have a shared understanding of which features should be >> documented in pulpcore, and which topics are owned by the plugin. In my >> opinion, most of the documentation on pulpcore is in the right place. The >> Plugin docs are off to a good start by covering each major feature with >> quickstart-style guides. Pulcore and each plugin's docs need to include >> more specific information, which should be covered by the REST API docs. >> >> REST API documentation is published on pulpcore's read the docs, but it >> is missing too much information, rendering it practically useless. >> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration-guide/rest-api/index.html#pulpcore-rest-api >> . Significantly better REST API docs can be viewed at the docs endpoint on >> a live-running pulp instance. The live REST API documentation partially >> fills the gap between the quickstart docs (major feature) and how that >> workflow can be altered (minor features). Unfortunately, these docs are not >> published, they are only available if the user takes the extra step of >> generating the documentation. >> >> *Plan:* >> >> 1. Begin by improving the REST API docs-- their inclusion will add a >> lot of "missing" information. This will affect a lot of the following docs >> work, allowing plugin writers to link to specific API calls, reducing the >> need and length for text explanations. >> 2. Clarify any discrepancy about what is expected to be documented by >> each plugin. This needs to be very clear to users, qe, and anyone who >> contributes docs, especially plugin writers. Necessary for successful >> documentation navigation. >> 3. Understand, revise, and groom issues from the docs planning backlog >> >> >> >> [0] https://etherpad.net/p/Pulp3_Docs_Planning >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
