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

New DocIndex #6144

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Nov 5, 2019
Merged

New DocIndex #6144

merged 9 commits into from
Nov 5, 2019

Conversation

JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member

@JimSuplizio JimSuplizio commented Nov 1, 2019

Add the code to create the new DocIndex. An example of what this looks like can be found here. This new DocIndex handles versioned docs. The doc, themselves, are stored in azure blob storage (I'm still doing the initial population so only the index is there right now, it'll be about 30 minutes or so).

It's also worth noting that while there are changes to pom.client.xml and pom.data.xml these changes will NOT cause us to have to republish them. The reason for this change was to pipe the version into the script that generates the additional overview from the readme so we can have the version on the landing page with a link back to the index.

Copy-Item "$(Build.SourcesDirectory)/eng/docgeneration/docfx.json" -Destination "$(Build.SourcesDirectory)/docfx_project/" -Force
displayName: Copy over docfx.json
- pwsh: |

Copy link
Member

@scbedd scbedd Nov 1, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like this should be an external powershell hosted in the eng/ directory or the like. Maybe eng/docgeneration.

However, I think that's the case for this entire thing (the yaml build), and both JS and .NET have the same problem with extensive build yml. Therefore I don't want to block this checkin based on this minor issue.

I will file an issue on each repo to clean up the build process of these docs, so we can prioritize that investment later.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@scbedd That's a fair enough request. I'll rework this when you file the issue.

@JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run java - core

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run java - core - ci

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run java - core

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@Azure Azure deleted a comment from azure-pipelines bot Nov 2, 2019
@JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run java - core

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@mitchdenny
Copy link
Contributor

/azp run java - core

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@mitchdenny
Copy link
Contributor

/azp run java - identity

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

@JimSuplizio
Copy link
Member Author

Because the azp run commands weren't working here I'd ended up kicking off a run through the pipeline, itself. Since that passed I'm going to check this in.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants