chore: add issue template for new components #152
Conversation
|
Styleguide deployed to https://square.github.io/maker/styleguide/new-component-template/#/ |
📊 Package size report No changes
Unchanged files
Hidden files
🤖 This report was automatically generated by pkg-size-action |
|
As with any change, it's important to outline the problems it's addressing so others can provide better feedback (hence the PR template -- please don't delete it next time). Right now the PR just describes a hope or an intention. But PRs should address something more concrete. That said, I'm wondering what specific problem/frustration you're addressing that the current Feature request template doesn't. And if there are any changes that should be made to the Feature request template instead (eg. delete it, rename it to "Component feature request", etc.) |
|
Updated description with more detail |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-
A lot of these questions (UI states, prior art, theming) seem like they should be answered by the component designers, rather than the engineer tasked with implementing it. Since we're using issue templates now, it shouldn't be hard for non-technical people to fill out. I wonder if it's worth making a "Component request" issue template intended for designers (no API discussion).
-
I think the "Feature request" issue template will be confusing with this change, and should be edited to clarify "Component feature request".
Co-authored-by: hiroki osame <osame@squareup.com>
More specific description for prior art suggestion.
|
Chatted with @landondurnan on Slack and I think the next move is to take a step back and publicly discuss the root problem on Issues/Discussion. That way we can get feedback from contributors on what works best for them. I think the main problem with this template is it's not clear who it's for (engineer vs designer). It has questions for both designers and engineers, and that makes it difficult for one person to answer. If we want to add a new Issue template for components, let's start by establishing a process that involves PM/designer + engineers so we can split up expected deliverables by target audience. |
|
Discussion here: #158 Responding to some past feedback:
This template is for engineers as they're articulating everything in the design or what aspects of the component are difficult to communicate in static mockups.
There is a process that exists for multiple designers to collaborate and review with engineers in Figma. This template is intended to synthesize the hand-off from design to engineering so that a larger group of engineers can align exclusively on the code to support the design requirements. This may require additional iterations with design, but the intent is to determine that collectively upon review of the submitted issue. |
|
I'm interested in learning how these changes address the feedback we got from contributors in #158. Can you update the PR description with that? My takeaways from the discussion are:
My review is only to support the views of contributors so I tagged them directly for review instead. |
|
Styleguide deployed to https://square.github.io/maker/styleguide/new-component-template/#/ |
|
Styleguide deployed to https://square.github.io/maker/styleguide/new-component-template/#/ |
landondurnan
dismissed
privatenumber’s stale review
Suggestions implemented and / or addressed through feedback from others
|
Styleguide deployed to https://square.github.io/maker/styleguide/new-component-template/#/ |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 6.3.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 7.0.0-beta.10 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Describe the problem this PR addresses
As more engineers are contributing new components to Maker I thought it would be helpful for communication and collaboration to ensure we're getting more information about a component before engineering work starts.
Building a new component from scratch requires more information and communication than simply adding a feature to an existing component. For example, a link to Figma with the design documentation ensures that we're all referencing the correct design files when discussing those requirements (there are internal examples of this not happening and causing confusion). Each question in this new issue template outline what's required as a minimum along with several suggested criteria for consideration of adding a new component to the system.
Describe the changes in this PR
A new issue template that provides a form output specifically for adding new components to Maker. Can't take a screenshot until it exists.
Other information
The existing new feature template is sufficient for general additions to the library, but it's easy to overlook many aspects that help us collaborate and review considerations specifically for new components.