-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
TREE-417: Reworked assertion documentation #129
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
Conversation
| - /detect/synthetic-monitoring/api-checks/assertions/ | ||
| - /detect/synthetic-monitoring/api-checks/requests/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do these make sure that the old links still work? For example, the CLI repo links to various places in the documentation and we should try to avoid breaking them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I was hoping for more intel on that as well as this is my first time setting up redirects.
One thing I realized is that alias doesn't seem to be a thing in Mintlify, I just updated the PR based on what Mintlify's docs say: https://www.mintlify.com/docs/create/redirects.
If there are no objections I'd verify this change first thing once its live and make adjustments if necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what you've set up with redirects should work. (At least, it does on the preview deployment.) Most of our redirects are set via the marketing site repo, but not sure if it matters in this case.
| - /detect/synthetic-monitoring/api-checks/assertions/ | ||
| - /detect/synthetic-monitoring/api-checks/requests/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think what you've set up with redirects should work. (At least, it does on the preview deployment.) Most of our redirects are set via the marketing site repo, but not sure if it matters in this case.
Co-authored-by: Laura Guo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Laura Guo <[email protected]>
Affected Components
Motivation
Currently, the dev docs on Assertions live within the API checks folder: https://www.checklyhq.com/docs/detect/synthetic-monitoring/api-checks/assertions/. They contain a lot of general information on assertions which are not only valid in the context on API checks - this has led us to link to the API check docs from other check types, which is confusing.
For that reason the proposal is to have top level assertion docs which we can link to from all check types.
Implementation Notes
"Assertions" are now a top level item in the "Detect" category. I was debating moving them into "Uptime Monitoring" instead, the main issue here is that we'd be linking to it from "API checks" (Which is in the "Synthetic Monitoring" folder)
I've put redirects in place for pages that have been removed / renamed, would need to verify that these work correctly
Once this is live, we need to update the links in the web-app.