This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 29, 2022. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add Type column in Attribute reference #651
Add Type column in Attribute reference #651
Changes from all commits
173e517
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
In my opinion, if we have a list or map of blocks, those should get separate table with parameters. It will be much more readable then.
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 don't want to sidetrack the discussion too much, but I've been wanting to re-evaluate using tables for a while now, so if we figure tables are causing trouble with this PR, maybe it's time to question this decision.
Rationale:
I find tables too limiting for a config reference as there isn't a lot of space in a table cell for really explaining what some knob is/does and also there is no convenient way to add note blocks or code snippets to help explain some point.
I'd rather have a more flexible format which allows us to write as much text as we want to explain a knob. I remind us that a config reference should be exhaustive rather than concise, i.e. "if it's not in the reference, it doesn't exist". I don't have a specific format in mind but am happy to propose one if folks are open to that.
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.
A concrete example:
The description for
cluster_name
isName of the cluster.
. IMO this description is nearly useless as it doesn't tell the user what would happen if they put one value or the other in this field. I'd rather include a longer text which explains how this value is used bylokoctl
, however I'd need some space to do that if I don't want to have a really tall table cell with lots of line breaks.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.
@johananl what are you suggesting we should do then? Should we keep it as it is? Should we not add type for lists and maps for now?
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 nothing against adding a type column, I wrote the above since it sounded to me like we were discussing the overall structure of the document and wanted to see if it's an opportunity to rethink our usage of tables.
I'm leaning towards a paragraph-based format with a ToC at the top, a bit like this maybe. This format allows a lot of flexibility since you can provide full-text paragraphs for each knob, there is room for notes and sample snippets etc. But this is likely out of scope for this PR. Again, I wanted to mainly give this as something to think about if we are re-evaluating the overall structure here.
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.
To move forward this how about leaving it like it is now (even if it's not very readable) and creating an issue to switch to a paragraph-based format?
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 am comfortable with this. So should I close this PR?
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'd merge this PR if it looks OK (it adds valuable information) and then we can work on moving to a paragraph-based format. I'll review this.
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.
Cool