DOCS: every provider doc includes feature flags automatically#4173
DOCS: every provider doc includes feature flags automatically#4173chicks-net wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
chicks-net
changed the title
|
This will need to get rebased, but I switched it to Draft since I want to wait to rebase until #3983 is merged. |
chicks-net
force-pushed
the
chicks/2026-03-17-provider-features-in-every-doc-fixes-3584
branch
from
015004d to
382f21e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Christopher Hicks <chicks.net@gmail.com>
|
Rebased after #3983 landed. This is ready for review again. (My timing for when I originally landed this was really bad. 😢 ) @TomOnTime @cafferata I'm looking forward to your feedback. For instance, can you think of something better than "Feature Flags" for the heading? In my humble opinion this really helps providers without much documentation like AutoDNS look better. On my screen this page now requires a bit of scrolling where the existing version fits without scrolling. |
TomOnTime
left a comment
TomOnTime
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code all looks good. I'll let @cafferata comment on the format/style.
As far as "Feature Flags"... how about calling it "Feature Support"?
cafferata
left a comment
cafferata
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current implementation looks good and will work well. The feature flags section is a valuable addition to each provider page. I have a few smaller suggestions that could improve the experience.
| ## Feature Flags | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- provider-features-start --> | ||
| - Provider Type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Provider Type" could link to the provider matrix so users can compare across providers. Same for the other category headings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd recommend we skip this. Adding the links in the "easy way" would also effect the headings in the Provider index page. The other links added are also effecting the tables in the main Provider index page, but since they're not functioning as headings it turns out good.
| Done. 2 corrections. | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Feature Flags |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would a user know what ❔ means? There is no legend included. The list is also quite long (21 features across 6 categories), and for most providers the majority is ❔.
A more compact approach: only show ✅ and ❌ items, grouped under "Supported" and "Not supported". That reduces the list to 5-10 items for most providers and removes visual noise. Users who want the full picture can still check the provider matrix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually the main provider matrix is not the full picture because we skip rows which are all ❔'s. I hope that having these ❔'s more visible on the provider documentation page will encourage maintainers to add in all of the Can/Cannots that are missing.
The explanation above the table https://docs.dnscontrol.org/provider/index is also wrong. It talks about "empty space" where we have moved to the ❔'s. So..... I'd recommend adding "unknown" after the ❔'s on the provider pages and eventually fix the wording above the table on https://docs.dnscontrol.org/provider/index . Does that sound like the right path to ya'll?
|
Is this ready for merge? I see a few unresolved conversations. |
No, I will try to get it in better shape today. |
Signed-off-by: Christopher Hicks <chicks.net@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Hicks <chicks.net@gmail.com>
Today slipped, sigh. It is also still not ready to merge. There's only a couple of questions for @cafferata though, so hopefully soon. 😁 |
3 participants
Fixes #3584
Done
Meta
(Automated in
.just/gh-process.just.)