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

Create reference documentation site #200

Closed
dmethvin-gov opened this issue Aug 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Create reference documentation site #200

dmethvin-gov opened this issue Aug 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
[practice] product Product related work [status] not prioritized Not necessarily won't-fix but near-term out of scope. [type] documentation Documentation related work

Comments

@dmethvin-gov
Copy link
Contributor

Here are some examples that we might follow when we get to the detailed per-widget documentation. Emphasis on pics of the rendered form elements and copy/paste of sample code.

https://joepuzzo.github.io/informed/?selectedKind=Inputs&selectedStory=Radio%20Input&full=0&addons=0&stories=1&panelRight=0&addonPanel=REACT_STORYBOOK%2Freadme%2Fpanel

@dmethvin-gov dmethvin-gov added the [type] documentation Documentation related work label Aug 1, 2018
@jcmeloni-usds
Copy link
Contributor

@bernars-usa To your mind, anything to do here?

@bernars-usa
Copy link
Contributor

There's not much that would be wise to spend a lot of time with docs-wise if the library is going to change drastically. Reference documentation is notoriously tedious to manually maintain (which is why it's often managed with tools like Swagger or Postman or older ones I won't mention because it will betray what a dusty old fogey I am).

There are definitely features like copy/paste of sample code or the three panel view that lord/slate has made so popular the last few years, but at that point the discussion becomes building out a full doc site (as Dave's issue title here implies). I'd recommend an epic for a generated docs site, when the time is right.

@jcmeloni-usds
Copy link
Contributor

Roger that.

@annekainicUSDS annekainicUSDS added the [status] not prioritized Not necessarily won't-fix but near-term out of scope. label Dec 27, 2018
@dmethvin-gov
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think any new work would make significant changes to the API so we wouldn't want to do this work for the current design.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[practice] product Product related work [status] not prioritized Not necessarily won't-fix but near-term out of scope. [type] documentation Documentation related work
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants