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

docs: refactor package & realm concept pages #1469

Closed
wants to merge 45 commits into from

Conversation

leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor

@leohhhn leohhhn commented Dec 19, 2023

Description

This PR refactors the Package & Realm concept pages in the docs, and fixes code/comments along the way.

Realm page is based on this reply from @moul.

Latest docs preview on Loom: https://www.loom.com/share/6f4ccfd615e7478fa4e58f8e1b6a8162?sid=f816751b-4521-476b-91b4-01d47bf85f80

Closes: #1579

Contributors' checklist...
  • Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
  • Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
  • Updated the official documentation or not needed
  • No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
  • Added references to related issues and PRs
  • Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
  • Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

@leohhhn leohhhn added the 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Dec 20, 2023
@leohhhn leohhhn changed the title docs: modify package & realm concept pages docs: clarify pkgpaths, modify package & realm concept pages Jan 17, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the 📖 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 24, 2024
@leohhhn leohhhn changed the title docs: clarify pkgpaths, modify package & realm concept pages docs: refactor package & realm concept pages Mar 26, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 3, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Let's look at return values for each of the methods:
```go
std.GetOrigCaller() => `g1jg8mtutu9khhfwc4nxmuhcpftf0pajdhfvsqf5`
std.PrevRealm() => `g1jg8mtutu9khhfwc4nxmuhcpftf0pajdhfvsqf5`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

isn't this helper returning a Realm struct?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch. It returns a realm. Will fix 👍

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed: 674e80c

@moul
Copy link
Member

moul commented Apr 8, 2024

I suggest using "Realm Package" instead of just "Realm" for clarity. Using "Realm User" may not be necessary. There is a definitional challenge here. Let's discuss this in a review meeting.

misc/docusaurus/sidebars.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
leohhhn and others added 2 commits June 5, 2024 13:17
# Conflicts:
#	docs/concepts/stdlibs/coin.md
#	docs/reference/stdlibs/std/chain.md
#	docs/reference/stdlibs/std/realm.md
#	misc/docusaurus/sidebars.js
@leohhhn leohhhn mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2024
[here](https://github.com/gnolang/gno/tree/master/examples/gno.land/p/demo/seqid).

## Packages vs Standard Libraries
Apart from packages, Gno, like Go, has standard libraries. To better
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is only one standard library, containing multiple packages, either in Go or Gno.

@leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor Author

leohhhn commented Aug 27, 2024

Awaiting reviews on this to merge it

@thehowl
Copy link
Member

thehowl commented Jan 23, 2025

@leohhhn do you still want reviews on this or should we close it for docs v2?

@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 requested a review from a team January 23, 2025 10:53
@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 added the review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review label Jan 23, 2025
@Gno2D2
Copy link
Collaborator

Gno2D2 commented Jan 23, 2025

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member (and label matches review triage state)

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):
  • IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🔴 Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member (and label matches review triage state)

☑️ Contributor Actions:
  1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
  2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
    • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
    • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
    • Update documentation, if required.
    • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
    • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.
☑️ Reviewer Actions:
  1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.
📚 Resources:
Debug
Automated Checks
Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: leohhhn/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 A changed file matches this pattern: ^docs/ (filename: docs/concepts/packages.md)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 And
    ├── 🔴 Or
    │   ├── 🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff
    │   └── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff approved pull request
    └── 🟢 Or
        ├── 🟢 Pull request author is a member of the team: devrels
        └── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team devrels approved pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member (and label matches review triage state)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the organization approved the pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

Manual Checks
**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

  • Any user with comment edit permission

@leohhhn
Copy link
Contributor Author

leohhhn commented Jan 23, 2025

Closing this as it has been reviewed in docs-v2 and merged. Thanks @thehowl

@leohhhn leohhhn closed this Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🧾 package/realm Tag used for new Realms or Packages. review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review
Projects
Status: Done
Status: Done
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Realms as EOAs
6 participants