Skip to content
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

fix(docs): broken link in Crafting in LB #2361

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 11, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@dhmlau
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 10, 2019

See #2020

This PR is a quick fix in the Crafting in LoopBack page for the broken link.
As suggested by @bajtos, we'll create a dedicated Component page as a longer term fix.
See #2020 (comment).

@dhmlau dhmlau requested review from bajtos and raymondfeng as code owners Feb 10, 2019

@dhmlau dhmlau self-assigned this Feb 10, 2019

@dhmlau dhmlau added the Docs label Feb 10, 2019

@dhmlau dhmlau referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2019

Closed

Add Component page under Key Concepts #2020

0 of 3 tasks complete
@@ -473,7 +473,8 @@ There are several key pillars to make extensibility a reality for LoopBack 4.
- [Context](Context.md), the IoC container to manage services
- [Dependency injection](Dependency-injection.md) to facilitate composition
- [Decorators](Decorators.md) to supply metadata using annotations
- [Component](Component.md) as the packaging model to bundle extensions
- [Component](Extending-LoopBack-4.md) as the packaging model to bundle
extensions

Please check out [Extending LoopBack 4](Extending-LoopBack-4.md).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nabdelgadir

nabdelgadir Feb 11, 2019

Contributor

Should we still keep this?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@dhmlau

dhmlau Feb 11, 2019

Author Contributor

I think we should still keep this bullet, because it belongs to There are several key pillars to make extensibility a reality for LoopBack 4.
An alternative link for Component could be https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4/Using-components.html. then it won't be duplicated what we have after the bullets.

what do you think?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nabdelgadir

nabdelgadir Feb 11, 2019

Contributor

Yeah, I think that's better so we can avoid duplication.

@dhmlau dhmlau force-pushed the crafting branch from 20bd15a to 3db5dcf Feb 11, 2019

@dhmlau dhmlau merged commit 7707fa5 into master Feb 11, 2019

4 checks passed

clahub All contributors have signed the Contributor License Agreement.
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
security/snyk - package.json (dhmlau) No manifest changes detected

@dhmlau dhmlau deleted the crafting branch Feb 11, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.