Full-text search does not currently display on live site

[SeanKilleen]

Works locally:

But not on the live site:

[SeanKilleen]

This issue is that the code to enable search (in docfx.js) looks for the contents of <meta property="docfx:rel">:

However, this only exists locally for me:

And not on the published site:

Possible Culprits

• Publishing issue misconfiguration
• Template issue
• Build container discrepancy between my local environment

[SeanKilleen]

I believe the issue is that our build system's docfx is several versions behind the version I'm using locally.

I've submitted nikeee/docfx-action#7 to request the update; if that's not possible, I'll fork & bring in-house.

[CharliePoole]

I assume the fallback is building your own container, not forking docfx itself.

[SeanKilleen]

I assume the fallback is building your own container, not forking docfx itself.

Correct -- I'm crazy, but not that crazy. 😆

[SeanKilleen]

Option 1

Fork the GitHub Action for building docfx into my SeanKilleen repo, iterate on it there, and use it in our build process.

⚠️ This technically means it's outside of the NUnit team's control and could go away if I do (less concerned about playing nice than the bus factor).

[SeanKilleen]

Option 2

Fork the GitHub Action for building docfx into the nunit org, iterate on it there, and use it in our build process.

⚠️ I am unsure of the process to create a new repo within the org. Is this a heavy lift org-wise?
⚠️ This also requires building a container, so we'd want to consider an nunit account on dockerhub if we were going to go this route.

[SeanKilleen]

@CharliePoole @OsirisTerje @jnm2 @rprouse @ChrisMaddock @mikkelbu

I'd like your opinion on the above (👍 / 👎)

I think we're going to need our own fork of the docfx-action project so that we can control docfx version numbers, have containers available when we need them, etc.

Perhaps I can make it more extensible and then contribute that back upstream eventually and jettison the project but in the interim I'd like to have the tooling we need.

I think I have an idea which way the group is leaning but I want to check first. (Additional options always welcome as well.)

[CharliePoole]

It's trivial to create a new repo in the org. Conceptually it would then be part of your "project".

[SeanKilleen]

Great, thanks for clarifying, @CharliePoole. I'll fork the repo into the project and it'll become part of the docs project.

[CharliePoole]

I'm not sure anyone but the owners can do that. If you aren't able, just send me the precise details and I'll do it.

[SeanKilleen]

Thanks @CharliePoole! I'd like to fork the https://github.com/nikeee/docfx-action repository into the org and be granted the same rights as I have here. The name docfx-action can stay as-is.

(as a side note for anyone interested: I plan on giving tons of thanks to the original author, making clear that it's a fork, and contributing back up-stream if the author is interested in the changes.)

[CharliePoole]

Sorry, I've been offline for a while. Done now, however.

[SeanKilleen]

This was resolved by #468, woo!