Remove APOC core documentation #3147
Conversation
gem-neo4j
added
5.0
team-cypher-surface
gem-neo4j
force-pushed
the
5.0_remove_core_documentation
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bfcf6a7
to
cc10b05
Compare
|
/installation/index.html Page contains several references in the text to APOC Core. In general the page might need to be cleaned up because the installation of APOC Extended is fairly different to the installation of APOC Core. |
|
/overview/index.html Would it perhaps be nice if this was green like it was before? Doesn't have to be, of course. Also I'm not sure the content of the pill should be that long as it seems to want to warp to a new line (may render differently once CSS rules are fully loaded)
|
|
/virtual-resource/index.html It seems to me like this whole page could be deleted, because it only contains APOC Core functions |
|
Some of the comments which I made in the other PR can also be applied to this PR.
|
|
I think that it would be nice to leave the Extended docs in an as-nice-as-possible state before handing them over. Users will continue to read them and engineers will need to continue to maintain them. However, if you feel that some of these would take an inordinate amount, then please feel free to bring that up. |
|
@AzuObs Thank you for the review, I know it was a lot 🥵 I’ve worked through the comments and gone back through the PRs to clean up misses :) With core, it was straight forward to remove all mentions of extended, however in extended I found that removing all mentions of any core procedure/function would remove the usability of the examples in the docs, so instead of removing them, if they are mentioned in examples, I have left it with the assumption that the user will also need core installed (or at least can understand what the example is doing). In regards to the pills, I don’t know how the colour works, it seems to be decided by the name (Nacho changed them to extended from full, hence the colour change). One option is we remove them? As they don’t give much more info, but that could be confusing, so am not sure what to do there. (Couldn’t find css that worked with them, but also my web developer skills are zero, so idk :P ) I agree that the docs should be nice, sadly they weren’t nice to begin with, so not sure how much effort to put in here 🤔 For answers on core ones (different PR but easier to have all responses together maybe). In terms of videos, I will leave them as is atm, same with retaking screenshots, just until I have met more with the docs team about the move (so as to not do work that may be irrelevant later). I think one thing to think of here is that the core PR is an intermediate step :) I would like to discuss as a team about the communication of the removal of apoc, and also similar to previous comment, I feel like adding things in this PR doesn’t make much sense, as this isn’t the new docs (most likely), so might be done after. I am happy with the decision to remove the dv docs :) |
|
An update as well, I investigated more mistakes in the docs (the extended/core is the place it should say, but doesn't in the released docs). I have updated these in my PRs to reflect the accurate one. apoc.bolt.execute — extended |
|
Hi Gem, thanks for the message - I've read it and it looks good. I don't really have anything to discuss further in that area, except perhaps your question about the pills where I think I agree that they could be entirely removed from the docs since they don't make much sense anymore. I will shortly be going over these PR again in a bit more detail 🙃 |
|
5/installation/index.html#neo4j-server I'm not sure how the new maintainers of this repository will want to version the product, and whether they will have a compatibility layer to ensure backwards compatibility. It would be strange for APOC Extended to be using a different versioning scheme than APOC Core, though... They'd probably want a pre-5.0 section and a post-5.0 section... If we have some things we weren't able to do in this repository because of time, then maybe we could make a ticket for the new maintainers with a list of things we recommend they look into? |
|
I had previously made this comment
This was before I knew that apoc.dv.* was in fact miscategorised in the docs, and that it is in fact part of APOC Extended. As such I think we ought to bring this page back. WDYT? |
|
The second round of PR review for this PR is now also done :) Thanks for all the hard work |
|
Haha oh dear :P I can for sure bring the file back 😅 Thanks for all the reviewing 💪 |
gem-neo4j
force-pushed
the
5.0_remove_core_documentation
branch
from
50b3348
to
f68595d
Compare
* Remove core documentation * Remove missed core documentation and images * Remove all extended pills as no longer useful for the docs * Bring back apoc.dv
A lot of deletion 🙃 if you want to see the docs instead do the following from the repo:
cd docs/antora
npm update
npm start
Then open index.html from docs/antora/build/site/apoc/5/index.html
(Note: my Intellij didn't like me doing one then the other, so I had to restart and invalidate caches to get it to work in the other repo)