-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Feature/improve contributor xp #729
Feature/improve contributor xp #729
Conversation
Sync with @samuel-gomez because he did some modifications regarding the design system on #728. |
@gcruchon les modifications ont été faites, est ce que tu pourrais les mettre au bon endroit ou les revoir si nécessaire. |
OK, @xballoy and @arnaudforaison, I am going to rebase, but I hope you see that 2 separate repos are not really optimized for a simple contribution experience ;-) |
154d211
to
4f89249
Compare
Waiting for comments from @youf-olivier (he has some ideas to add, as I understood) to finalize the PR. |
Alors il faut ajouter :
|
Merci @youf-olivier ! Pour le "ça tourne que sur Node 12+", j'ai gardé ce que @xballoy avait mis dans sa PR :
Pour les soucis de migration, en phase aussi, j'utilise beaucoup Mais c'est mal, parce que :
Du coup, je viens de poster un update qui :
|
Yes, it's fine on master
…-------- Original Message --------
On 25 Oct 2020, 14:07, Gilles CRUCHON wrote:
@gcruchon commented on this pull request.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In [CONTRIBUTING.md](#729 (comment)):
> +
+### Documentation
+
+After working on a component, you are expected to update the documentation.
+
+Documentation can be found in the [Design System](https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/design-system) repository.
+
+Do not forget to update the component status page, located in this repository at:
+
+```text
+└─ src/
+ └─ pages/
+ └─ get-started/
+ └─ component-status/
+ └─ markdown/
+ └─ content.md
True, that makes sense now that it's in a different repo (though there is a link on line 145)
NB: link will be on master, is that OK?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, [view it on GitHub](#729 (comment)), or [unsubscribe](https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHRYLSMIUGPZCASVIFAWDSMQPK7ANCNFSM4SVJKMXQ).
|
Then all should OK for a merge 😅 |
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
For this, you will add a remote which points to the original repository (this has to be done only once): | ||
|
||
```sh | ||
git remote add upstream https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit |
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.
Ce n'est pas plutôt https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit.git
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.
Will fix, thanks
```sh | ||
git checkout master | ||
git fetch upstream | ||
git rebase upstream/master |
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.
La doc dit de faire un merge, utile de le préciser ici ?
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.
Both merge and rebase are working, what's your issue with rebase?
https://medium.com/@topspinj/how-to-git-rebase-into-a-forked-repo-c9f05e821c8a
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.
Les 2 fonctionnent mais la doc officielle GitHub dit de faire un merge. Peut importe c'est bien comme ça.
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.
This only thing: if, by mistake you started to work on your master branch, rebase will be easier to understand in the history.
Other issue I faced today: I worked on 2 different branches, my first branch (this one) is taking more time to be reviewed than my second branch (brandUlr). My second branch was merged into upstream repo before my first branch. Without rebase, it was a total mess in the history :)
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 also prefer to rebase, I would keep it like that
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
├── src/ | ||
├── __snapshots__ : generated storybook snapshots used to test the component. | ||
├── GreatComponent.js : the react component code. | ||
├── GreatComponent.md : more documentation about the component (props, ...). |
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.
Sauf erreur de ma part mais il n' y a que des README.md
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.
Well... 9 occurrences... of such.
So what is what's the proper way to do? :)
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/date/src/CustomDate.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/date/src/InputDate.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/choice/src/Choice.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/switch/src/Switch.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/date-phone/src/DatePhone.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Form/Input/date-phone/src/InputDate.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Layout/header/src/NavBar/NavBarItem.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Layout/header/src/NavBar/NavBar.md
- https://github.com/AxaGuilDEv/react-toolkit/blob/master/packages/Layout/header/src/ToggleButton/ToggleButton.md
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
Do not forget to update the component status page, located in this repository at: | ||
|
||
```text | ||
└─ src/ |
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.
Est ce que c'est vraiment l'endroit pour préciser cela ?
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 root for that, even more since the code was split in another repo :) Not everybody have the history.
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.
Le code n'est pas splitté en plusieurs repo. On a d'un côté un site de présentation des guidelines et de l'autre (ici) l'implémentation des ces guidelines en React. 2 choses totalement différente
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.
Those 2 things were in the same repo before, that's why I call it a split :-D
Anyway, the end result: if you create / update a component here, you have to update the guideline as well, and it's a job to do in another repo. Therefore, if you are a newbie, like me, you are happy to know it.
I think you are right, I should not indicate the path to this "component-status" page (it may change one day). Is it OK to keep only a reminder (I just pushed that)?
|
||
Keep in mind, though, that your pull request will be squashed into master, so repository mainteners may use your commit message but are not entitled to use them as is. | ||
|
||
## Scripts |
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.
Pour moi c'est de trop car les scripts évoluent et si le dev veut les voir il suffit d'aller sur le package.json
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.
Not everybody is a jedi master. Think of this as a way to help newcomers.
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 agree with Gilles, we never have too much documentation
@@ -9,13 +9,13 @@ | |||
"scripts": { | |||
"publish": "lerna publish", | |||
"postinstall": "npm run clean && lerna bootstrap --no-ci && npm run style", | |||
"clean": "node ./scripts/clean.js", | |||
"clean": "npm run clean:node_modules && npm run clean:dist", | |||
"clean:dist": "node ./scripts/clean.js", |
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.
Peut etre utiliser un lerna exec couplé avec rimraf (le plus performant sur windows et utiliser par lerna clean)
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.
Not sure I get it...
Rimraf being used in both lerna clean
and clean.js
what would you like?
I am not sure we should rewrite lerna clean
. If any bug, let's fix it in Lerna's repo.
As for clean.js
, if any bug / improvement, let's fix it in another PR?
Je vous laisse merger, du coup? :) |
Je t'ai fait des retours @gcruchon |
1f172ae
to
de37273
Compare
de37273
to
1585b92
Compare
Rebased & Pushed some fixes. |
One more reviewer? @youf-olivier @arnaudforaison, are you OK with those fixes? |
Should I rebase it or you can actually squash it in master? |
Clairement je suis pas un super fan du nouveau bouton : Ca va faire des historique dégueu avec de merge de la master vers la branche (cf le post #786) |
Related issue
Reference to the issue
Fix #693
Description of the issue
Improving contributor experience by adding:
This is a first version, do not hesitate to comment and request for more docs.
Person(s) for reviewing proposed changes
@arnaudforaison @samuel-gomez @guillaumechervet @xballoy @youf-olivier