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

[docs] Docs restructure #30091

Closed
32 tasks done
siriwatknp opened this issue Dec 7, 2021 · 9 comments · Fixed by #33463
Closed
32 tasks done

[docs] Docs restructure #30091

siriwatknp opened this issue Dec 7, 2021 · 9 comments · Fixed by #33463
Assignees
Labels
design This is about UI or UX design, please involve a designer docs Improvements or additions to the documentation

Comments

@siriwatknp
Copy link
Member

siriwatknp commented Dec 7, 2021

From the decision in the Notion, the documentation will be restructured into each product.

Goal

Incrementally and smoothly transition to the new structure by preserving the same DX for the community and maintainers (tests should be added along the way).

The new repo structure:
image

Improvements are not the focus of this initiative. However, they can be listed in this issue and prioritized later.

Plan

To achieve a smooth transition, the work is split into 3 phases.

1. Preparation

Prepare E2E tests, migration tool, update scripts and add UI (each PR should be able to merge without affecting the production code, either set as feature flag or exclude from production build).

2.1 Migrate content

At this phase, the new URLs have to be deployed to production so that algolia can crawl and index. However, before algolia finish the indexing I think we should preserve the old URLs (meaning, people still browsing old URLs and won't realize that we are migrating the content).

What'd happen after running the scripts

  • data (demos, markdowns) will be moved from docs/src/pages/* to docs/data/*. (Both the old & new URLs are using the same demos, markdowns from the new location so we are always using the single source of truth)
  • feature toggle enable_product_scope: true is turned on. This enables several things such as E2E tests for the new URLs, buildApi script, and query markdowns from the new location.
  • product identifier & navigation are rendered on new locations but not on old URLs
  • All of the links for existing pages remain the same, which means users won’t realize that the duplicated contents exist. (But they can accidentally access via direct URL).
  • yarn docs:api will generate API pages for both previous & new URLs

image

3. New product spaces

Est. mid of Mar.

4. Go live

Est. 4th April 2022.

5. Clean up

  • remove material-redirects.spec e2e after redirects period
  • delete old pages inside docs/pages/...`
  • `remove material-old e2e test
  • remove replaceHtmlLinks, replaceUrlLinks
  • remove migration script
  • remove old config in buildApi.ts
  • use new logic in parseMarkdown.js for the API section

cc @mui-org/core @mui-org/x

@siriwatknp siriwatknp added website Pages that are not documentation-related, marketing-focused. docs Improvements or additions to the documentation and removed website Pages that are not documentation-related, marketing-focused. labels Dec 7, 2021
@siriwatknp siriwatknp changed the title [website] Docs restructure [docs] Docs restructure Dec 7, 2021
@siriwatknp

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mbrookes

This comment was marked as outdated.

@siriwatknp

This comment was marked as outdated.

@mbrookes

This comment was marked as outdated.

@oliviertassinari
Copy link
Member

oliviertassinari commented Feb 22, 2022

The current plan looks great. A few more thoughts:

  1. I think that we should move with as small steps as possible. As far as I understand it, we only need two docs to justify doing the restructuring, and the blog post. So we could do two, but anything extra (e.g. 4) would be even better. Now, my point is that I would challenge that delaying the release beyond Q1 2022 for having more docs has an overall positive ROI. Why? Because we wouldn't go to prod as fast as we can, and people tend to forget, and not notice things (we would be eventually in a great state with all the docs created).
  2. I feel that https://mui.com/material-ui/react-modal/ would resonate better than https://mui.com/material/react-modal/. Am I the only one? My main concern is that https://mui.com/x/ works because the full product name is MUI X. But https://mui.com/material/, the product name is not MUI Material (decided to not have developers re-learn the existing brand name). I don't have a strong point of view on this but wanted to raise this potential opportunity in case it resonates with other team members. Related to [docs] Add Base installation page #30969 (comment)

@mnajdova
Copy link
Member

I feel that https://mui.com/material-ui/react-modal/ would resonate better than https://mui.com/material/react-modal/. Am I the only one?

+1 on this one

@siriwatknp
Copy link
Member Author

I feel that https://mui.com/material-ui/react-modal/ would resonate better than https://mui.com/material/react-modal/. Am I the only one?

🥲 Another migration, but it looks like it should be mui.com/material-ui/*.

@siriwatknp
Copy link
Member Author

@oliviertassinari Another thought, is it

https://mui.com/material-ui/react-modal/ or
https://mui.com/materialui/react-modal/

? given that we decided to go with "Material UI" without a hyphen.

I had this thought after seeing https://headlessui.dev

@michaldudak
Copy link
Member

Hyphens are commonly placed in URLs in place of spaces, so even though the name of the library is Material UI, to me it's perfectly fine to have material-ui in the URL.

@oliviertassinari oliviertassinari added the design This is about UI or UX design, please involve a designer label May 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
design This is about UI or UX design, please involve a designer docs Improvements or additions to the documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants