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

Facet range doc review #303

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Feb 7, 2017
Merged

Facet range doc review #303

merged 25 commits into from
Feb 7, 2017

Conversation

fbeaudoincoveo
Copy link
Contributor

@fbeaudoincoveo fbeaudoincoveo commented Feb 2, 2017

Trying to go for smaller PRs using branches... :)
Doesn't look like it worked though :/
See DOC-458

Deploy

fbeaudoincoveo and others added 22 commits January 16, 2017 17:35
I went a little bit further than a simple spell check for those first few components.
I will limit myself to a quick spell checks for the next components, though.
- Added link to IGroupByRequest interface.
- Made a tiny correction.
- Changed HTML link to markdown link.
- Reexposing selectSuggestion(suggestion: number) instead of selectSuggestion(suggestion: any) in public documentation.
…ation:

- "Standardized" bindings description in constructor documentation.
- Corrected a leftover spelling mistake.
- Some rephrasing and improvements.
- Unexposed options (this component has no option).
- Unexposed validLayouts static attribute (redundant with ValidLayout type) and currentLayout attribute (redundant with getCurrentLayout() method).
- Linked to ValidLayout type documentation.
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.861% when pulling 1aa44ae on fbeaudoincoveo:FacetRangeDocReview into 8a912b6 on coveo:master.

* $("#search").coveo("init", {
* FacetRange : {
* ranges : myRanges
* }
* })
* ```
*
* Default value is `null` and the index will automatically generate ranges.
*/
ranges: ComponentOptions.buildCustomOption<IRangeValue[]>(() => {
return null;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should I expose the constructor?

Copy link
Member

@olamothe olamothe Feb 3, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure. It's not 100% necessary though.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.861% when pulling 7f15f05 on fbeaudoincoveo:FacetRangeDocReview into 8a912b6 on coveo:master.

@olamothe
Copy link
Member

olamothe commented Feb 6, 2017

You'll need to fix the conflicts before I can approve this merge.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.004%) to 75.857% when pulling 5f7b39b on fbeaudoincoveo:FacetRangeDocReview into 8a912b6 on coveo:master.

@fbeaudoincoveo
Copy link
Contributor Author

For some reason, coveralls says the coverage has decreased with this PR; however I don't really see how that's possible since I've only made changes to doc :)

@olamothe
Copy link
Member

olamothe commented Feb 7, 2017

Yeah don't worry about that.

It's not a perfect indicator.

@olamothe olamothe merged commit 6ce4462 into coveo:master Feb 7, 2017
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 75.857% when pulling 74be7a0 on fbeaudoincoveo:FacetRangeDocReview into f3be19c on coveo:master.

@fbeaudoincoveo fbeaudoincoveo deleted the FacetRangeDocReview branch February 7, 2017 15:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants