FC-0068 docs: Reference cleaning by edunext #2 #690
Conversation
This PR modifies a series of reference documents migrated from the legacy repositories to the educators' documentation. The principal changes are in the custom_python reference, divided into one reference, two concepts, and three how-tos. Another important thing for reviewers is the link to edX files in the Custom Javascript reference that I couldn't erase due to their need for the proper function of that example.
openedx-webhooks
added
the
open-source-contribution
|
Thanks for the pull request, @Apgomeznext! What's next?Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review: 🔘 Get product approvalIf you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.
🔘 Provide contextTo help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:
🔘 Get a green buildIf one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green. 🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:Who will review my changes?This repository is currently maintained by Where can I find more information?If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:
When can I expect my changes to be merged?Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible. However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:
💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR. |
|
Thanks for the pull request, @Apgomeznext! What's next?Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review: 🔘 Get product approvalIf you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.
🔘 Provide contextTo help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:
🔘 Get a green buildIf one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green. 🔘 Update the status of your PRYour PR is currently marked as a draft. After completing the steps above, update its status by clicking "Ready for Review", or removing "WIP" from the title, as appropriate. 🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:Who will review my changes?This repository is currently maintained by Where can I find more information?If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:
When can I expect my changes to be merged?Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible. However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:
💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO, "instance platform" is redundant. Choose one and be consistent with it throughout the doc, but not both.
source/educators/references/advanced_features/planning_content_reuse.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
source/educators/references/advanced_features/planning_content_reuse.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
source/educators/references/advanced_features/managing_teams_via_csv.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
source/educators/references/advanced_features/managing_teams_via_csv.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"instance platform" is redundant, IMO. Choose one or the other and be consistent with it throughout the doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I use "instance" and "platform" interchangeably, but never at the same time. Use either "Open edX instance" OR "Open edX platform" - I think sometimes "instance" is more correct while "platform" can often refer to the codebase itself as a platform (as opposed to a local instance)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would argue this is a how-to. The verb here is "award", which generally is a giveaway of a how-to doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would argue this is a reference. It is a specific details about a format. This kind of list, table, or other details is more reference than a concept which usually covers bigger-picture ideas.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I use "instance" and "platform" interchangeably, but never at the same time. Use either "Open edX instance" OR "Open edX platform" - I think sometimes "instance" is more correct while "platform" can often refer to the codebase itself as a platform (as opposed to a local instance)
source/educators/references/advanced_features/managing_teams_via_csv.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
source/educators/references/advanced_features/managing_teams_via_csv.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
source/educators/references/advanced_features/teams_configuration_options.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
This PR modifies a series of reference documents migrated from the legacy repositories to the educators' documentation.
The principal changes are in the custom_python reference, divided into one reference, two concepts, and three how-tos.
Another important thing for reviewers is the link to edX files in the Custom Javascript reference that I couldn't erase due to their need for the proper function of that example.