-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 514
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
Documentation for deleting files (improvement) #791
Merged
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d61b9db
Merge commit 'e129790ed587819ecfcaed59fc7ff90ec6ffcfa1' into gh-pages
mtrezza 9cc311c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/gh-pages' into gh-pages
mtrezza d425b11
Merge commit 'cc489df4a3d8544a52148c079ecaee3d1762108d' into gh-pages
mtrezza ddb5cb1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/gh-pages' into gh-pages
mtrezza 3cf6398
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/gh-pages' into gh-pages
mtrezza 5e6c8fa
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/gh-pages' into gh-pages
mtrezza b62ab67
improved JS doc for deleting file
mtrezza 6a63e8d
removed required reference to delete file
mtrezza c320d7e
changed bullet point to headline
mtrezza File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 think it's unnecessary to mention the 4.2.0 requirement twice here. I suggest removing the bullet point. Perhaps it would be nice have a note below the
Deleting Files
title. Something like this...Available only on Parse Server Cloud Code starting 4.2.0
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.
Yea, that seems redundant. How about:
TheUse the REST API to delete a file.destroy
method is available since Parse Server 4.2.0, for lower versionsMy thinking was that the docs should always reflect the newest version. Any notes regarding previous versions are becoming negligible and should therefore be below, marked with their own headline or bullet point, ordered by relevance descending. The layout would be:
< DOC FOR NEWEST VERSION, high relevance >
Parse Server <4.2.0
< DOC FOR VERSION <4.2, medium relevance >
Parse Server <2.2.0
< DOC FOR VERSION <2.2, low relevance >
What do you think?
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.
Wording wise that works
Ahh, I didn't realise you were using the bullet point as a form of heading. I agree with the hierarchy.
I don't think the layout for the older versions works as the line(s) below aren't indented. I would suggest either having the whole doc on the bullet point or using an actual heading like
###
.Could you also add
Available only on Parse Server Cloud Code starting 4.2.0
under neither the mainDeleting Files
heading?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.
Right, that makes sense, I'll change that.
When I look into the docs, I often stumble upon a "Available since parse server 2.x", and it never fails to irritate me. I think visual real estate should ideally contain only info that is useful, but these notes are not useful for maybe 99% of readers, because they use a version >2.x. Basically, these notes become pretty old pretty fast.
So instead of saying:
I would say:
because it would be consistent with this schema:
This way the notes are used has headlines and denote their own doc block without interfering with the section that documents the status quo.
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 find this contradictory, you are saying that a 1 line note at the top irritates you and is not useful but also suggesting documenting potentially multiple older versions below?
Notes about features available on 2.x should probably be removed but personally I like the notes about recent releases at the top as it hopefully helps to prevent people wasting time trying to use features which don't exist on their version and helps to showcase the improvements being made across the platform.
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 think we think the same :)
What I mean is that a line at the top "available since..." is unnecessary for most readers and therefore should be avoided because it is placed before the information the reader is actually looking for.
A line at the bottom "on lower version use workaround..." is not as disturbing since it is placed below the information most readers are looking for.
Now, whether it should be mentioned that a feature is not available or that there is a workaround for lower versions is a different question. I think it should, and there may be better forms of denoting the availability of features.
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.
Sorry for the lack of reply!
I'm not sure I agree with your assumptions about 'most readers' but I really don't have the head space to discuss this further at the moment.
I'll merge the PR as it's definitely as improvement regardless!