Skip to content

Conversation

prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor

@prithvipatil97 prithvipatil97 commented Feb 13, 2025

Version(s):

RHOCP-4.18, RHOCP-4.17, RHOCP-4.16, RHOCP-4.15, RHOCP-4.14

Issue:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OBSDOCS-1346

Link to docs preview:

https://88600--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/observability/logging/logging-6.1/log6x-about-6.1.html

QE review:

  • QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

- Here is the link: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.16/observability/logging/logging-6.1/log6x-about-6.1.html#quick-start-viaq_{context}

- Problems:
  - Prerequisites are missing.
  - Operators names are not highlighted.
  - Step 4, namespace name is missing from the command
  - Step 5, all commands are separated.

- We are performing the following changes through this PR:
  - Added required Prerequisites.
  - Highlighted the Operator's names in Step 1.
  - Namespace name is added in the Step 4 
  - Removed $ oc project openshift-logging, and combined all command from Step 5 in a single unit, and added namespace name at the end.
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 13, 2025
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 13, 2025

@prithvipatil97: 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.

@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

/label peer-review-needed

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Feb 14, 2025
@xenolinux xenolinux added peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR and removed peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Feb 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@xenolinux xenolinux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Posted two comments to consider; otherwise looks good.

Comment on lines +72 to +74
$ oc adm policy add-cluster-role-to-user collect-application-logs -z collector -n openshift-logging
$ oc adm policy add-cluster-role-to-user collect-audit-logs -z collector -n openshift-logging
$ oc adm policy add-cluster-role-to-user collect-infrastructure-logs -z collector -n openshift-logging
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The old version (commands in a separate code blocks) is correct.

Do not use more than one command per code block.

====

. Allow the collector's service account to collect logs:
+
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Allow the collector's service account to collect logs: --> can be updated to something like --> To collect logs, use the service account of the collector by running the following command:

I know this PR doesn't touch this line, but FYI:

Avoid using "allow": https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ibm-style?topic=word-usage#a

Avoid stating that inanimate objects grant abilities to people, as in “the product allows you to…”. Whenever possible, use a direct, user-focused alternative such as “you can use the product to…” or “with this product, users can…”.

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ibm-style?topic=grammar-possessives

Do not use possessive ’s with inanimate objects.

@xenolinux xenolinux added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR labels Feb 14, 2025
@prithvipatil97
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for this suggestion.
I will work on it... For now, closing this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants