OBSDOCS-1408: Make an example separation for Moving monitoring compon…

[eromanova97]

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP:

  • Core platform monitoring: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack
  • User workload monitoring: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. It also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical content.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be yet visible in the documentation.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Tue Oct 22 07:06:58 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-dedicated/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html
https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html
https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be yet visible in the documentation.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedure will be in a different place, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be yet visible in the documentation.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be yet visible in the documentation.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be yet visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse insteda of duplication. I will also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical contents.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse insteda of duplication. I will also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical contents.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. I will also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical contents.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. Ii also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical contents.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. It also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical content.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[eromanova97]

/label peer-review-needed

[juzhao]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. It also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical content.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[kcarmichael08]

I had some confusion about the tagging - can you confirm what I've assumed in my second comment is the way that it is supposed to display? Also, I wasn't sure if "wildcards aren't supported" means that you cannot use asterisks. I am not sure how to check a preview of what goes through PV1.

[skrthomas]

I am not sure how to check a preview of what goes through PV1.

Unfortunately the only way to check this now is to just go check docs.rehat.com after merging and make sure it all looks as expected. Tags are one of those things you have to doublecheck. They've been known to work well in simple form, but more complicated tags can throw PV1 for a loop. Just bc of limited testing in ocp docs, we don't have a ton of data. So its up to writers who use them to double check and make sure the rendering is OK.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@eromanova97: This pull request references OBSDOCS-1408 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

Version(s): no CP

Issue: OBSDOCS-1408

Link to docs preview:

• OCP:

• Core platform monitoring: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-cpm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• User workload monitoring: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

• ROSA/OSD: https://83431--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/observability/monitoring/configuring-the-monitoring-stack.html#moving-monitoring-components-to-different-nodes-uwm_configuring-the-monitoring-stack

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:
This is the first example split of core platform monitoring and user workload monitoring procedures. The issue is getting merged to only monitoring-docs-restructure, not to main, therefore this change will not be visible in the documentation.

The tagging is implemented so that once this is moved to two different assemblies, we will still only have one module to maintain. This will ensure content reuse instead of duplication. It also prevents creation of multiple new modules with basically identical content.

This issue also asks for changes in ID, however, in the final product, the two procedures will be in a different assembly, therefore two IDs will not be needed (context parameter will take care of it)

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[eromanova97]

Hello @kcarmichael08 @skrthomas thank you for your feedback! I added some explanatory comments in the assemby and module to make it easier for reviewing, I hope that helps 🙂 If you have any tips how to make it even easier for the reviewers (because more such PRs will be coming) , please let me know 🙏 Thanks!

Edit: I am also trying to investigate the possibility to test this for docs.redhat before merging (openshift docs work as expected), because it would be a big issue to fix only after it gets merged. I will update on this as soon as I have more information.

[openshift-ci]

@eromanova97: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[eromanova97]

/label merge-review-needed