-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.6k
[ADD] fleet: new configurations doc #5763
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
Conversation
96544f3 to
244b8b8
Compare
jcs-odoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @larm-odoo
If it fits the structure you have planned for this app's documentation, could you maybe move the configuration info to the app-level page (hr/fleet.rst)? Just a suggestion :)
Cheers :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about "configuration" only? it is in the "Fleet" category. But see also my suggestion in the main comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @jcs-odoo - I have two documents currently written in github for fleet, and I am working on a third. So ultimately, they will all be nested under 'fleet', so I didn't want to make the default fleet doc be this one.
I had done the format you suggested for other apps, where main doc I wrote covered 90% of things, but this time I was trying to chop the docs up into smaller digestible pieces, so that's why I tried to make separate docs for different items (addling a vehicle, configurations, reports, repairs, etc). If you don't think that's appropriate or a good idea, I can combine all the docs into one, but I was hoping to try and make the docs less overwhelming by having them separated out. Does that sound good?
I also know it means that once one doc is approved and posted, I will need to change the TOC so it looks correct with the newly added docs. I didn't want to wait to have the first doc be posted for review, have it go live, then add the rest, one at a time. That is why there are 2 (with another one on the way) posted now for review. Does that sound good/sound like a good plan? I have no objections in changing this method BTW- just thought it was a good thing to try.
As for the title- yes- I like that, and will update that now!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @larm-odoo
You're right, it's better to have several pull requests rather than a massive one, at least in this documentation repository. Once the first PR is merged, you'll probably have a conflict on the other ones until you fix the toc tree. So that's fine :)
I agree this content only wouldn't make that much sense for the main page. Now that I see it again, I think my suggestion isn't better. "Configuration" alone is too vague (a bit like "misc." or "advanced"). Maybe "vehicle models and manufacturers"? That would be more representative. It's up to you :)
Have a good day
244b8b8 to
916bc34
Compare
jero-odoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@larm-odoo Nice work, just a few things to edit.
916bc34 to
5fbb787
Compare
|
Just FYI- this is done in 15.2 runbot. When requesting a new vehicle, in this doc, the word is CREATE but in 15,0 it is NEW- just an FYI so you know. That's really the only difference in the versions for this doc, so I wanted to point that out. |
tiku-odoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good start...
I think this doc needs some more work though. I saw spelling errors after your team looked it over. I also have some suggestions. You repeat a section of this doc in the other doc (#5759) -- we should never be inputting info twice-- is it housed differently? can we prioritize and create an anchor?
The style seems cookie cut-- I would like to see better flow in these docs. Also keep in mind to write smart for 16/17. (save for example--- "if applicable, click save")
I would like to take a look at this doc again when you draft more changes.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Tim 👍
5fbb787 to
b4d5771
Compare
|
Hi @tiku-odoo - I went through and addressed all your comments. I think everything should be clarified, but if not, let me know! |
tiku-odoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks much better! A couple of comments. It looks good.
See comment: #5759 (review)
I will approve once you can clarify the duplicate info. I know it's present on both forms; just confused why it's input twice.
b4d5771 to
2529a3c
Compare
|
Hi @tiku-odoo - I addressed everything and added an anchor in this doc (which will be linked to the other doc, the new vehicle doc). This doc needs to be published first so that the following doc can reference this one. Right now the other doc has a code error because it is linking to an anchor in this doc, which doesn't exist yet online. Please check/approve this one first, so I can have this published, then I will get the other doc published. Any issues with this let me know- thank you! |
2529a3c to
f9185bd
Compare
tiku-odoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approving this content. Great job adding the anchor for the process you refer to in #5759
|
When this PR closes, get [ADD] fleet: add a new vehicle |
samueljlieber
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @larm-odoo! Awesome job with the content in this PR, very thorough 👍
I do have a few suggestions after my technical review, which you can review below.
Please tag me for another look once my suggestions have been addressed, thank you!
2fa9f45 to
60b0ac2
Compare
|
Thank you Sam for your help and review! This is ready for another look. |
samueljlieber
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @larm-odoo! Thanks for implementing my changes, I caught one small edit that I will push up after this review. Approving now, and moving forward. Thank you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Extra line 🙂
60b0ac2 to
1634347
Compare
|
Hi @StraubCreative this PR is good to go 👍 |
Co-authored-by: Sam Lieber (sali) <36018073+samueljlieber@users.noreply.github.com>
1634347 to
fb21652
Compare
StraubCreative
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@robodoo r+
closes #5763 Signed-off-by: Zachary Straub (zst) <zst@odoo.com> Co-authored-by: Sam Lieber (sali) <36018073+samueljlieber@users.noreply.github.com>
Adding new fleet documentation- this one is all the configurations in the config column.