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

Time frame to exit beta? #6

Closed
janosh opened this issue Jul 9, 2018 · 15 comments · Fixed by #10
Closed

Time frame to exit beta? #6

janosh opened this issue Jul 9, 2018 · 15 comments · Fixed by #10

Comments

@janosh
Copy link
Contributor

janosh commented Jul 9, 2018

A Gatsby plugin for Algolia would be awesome and much appreciated! Is there already a timeframe on when to exit beta and add documentation?

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Jul 10, 2018

Thanks for your interest, indeed what's missing to move this from beta ➡️ full release is the following:

  1. more expanded documentation
  2. proper testing strategy
  3. atomic indexing (Atomic index #5)
  4. indexing only changed objects

For now I didn't have the time yet to squash these bugs, but it definitely works, tested in a few different sites so far.

So a time frame isn't there yet, but I'll make sure to make some time for this when I'm out of holiday and can dedicate some time on this.

Is there anything else you would like to see @janosh?

@janosh
Copy link
Contributor Author

janosh commented Sep 14, 2018

@Haroenv Any news yet?

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 14, 2018

Atomic indexing has been done, although I'm still going to do a second pass at another time to use less indexing operations. (indexing only the changes). As well as needing proper tests.

Is there anything you specifically need before using this?

@janosh
Copy link
Contributor Author

janosh commented Sep 14, 2018

@Haroenv I'm struggling to get indexing to work in this repo. I'm trying to index all pages sourced from Contentful, but no records are added to the index I created with my Algolia account. Instead, running gatsby build I receive the error that data is undefined in gatsby-plugin-algolia's transformer on line 27 of gatsby-config.js.

Could you perhaps take a look at this?

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 14, 2018

I'll take a look at that yes :)

@ErisDS
Copy link

ErisDS commented Sep 27, 2018

I'm having the exact same issue:

Cannot read property 'allSitePage' of undefined

I'm using the exact code from the readme, it errors in the transformer because no data is passed to the function.

The same query works perfectly in the graphql query explorer.

I'm using Gatsby v2 and trying to figure out if there's something that needs migrating?

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 27, 2018

@ErisDS would it be possible to create a minimal example? you can start from the one in the repository :)

ErisDS added a commit to TryGhost/docs that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2018
@ErisDS
Copy link

ErisDS commented Sep 27, 2018

@Haroenv I will try, what I can do for now is point you at my branch / commit:

TryGhost/docs@bee7021

Hopefully that at least shows that my code is near-identical to the readme.

The outcome on gatsby build is:

image

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 27, 2018

So far I've managed to get your site to build and see that index to Algolia seems not to end, but I don't get that error :(

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 27, 2018

Weird to be happy to finally have an error, but I'm happy that I now can start debugging

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 27, 2018

I found the issue (and also a source of grey hairs maybe?) TryGhost/docs#7 and sbsev/gatsby-site#40

@janosh
Copy link
Contributor Author

janosh commented Sep 27, 2018

@Haroenv Were you able to reproduce (or even fix) the error in my repo?

@ErisDS
Copy link

ErisDS commented Sep 27, 2018

@Haroenv Thank you for taking the time to do that 🎉

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 28, 2018

@janosh, I actually saw you made the same kind of “mistake” so I didn’t have to try it out. I’m concinced my pr there was necessary and the fix though :)

@Haroenv
Copy link
Contributor

Haroenv commented Sep 28, 2018

oops, this shouldn't really have closed this issue since it was mixed with the "timeframe out of beta", but I answered that :). As @ErisDS said, I might change the way of passing the query to a more standard way if that makes sense

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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants