Provider wiki about bell HOT 6 CLOSED

What do you think about documenting the provider details directly in the source code of the providers?

It would have more of a chance at staying up to date...

from bell.

I think it would still merit having a significant portion if it outside the code base. It is easier to diff code changes version to version if there is not a large portion of changing comments sprinkled throughout a file. Plus some of this type of information could be hard to find if it was dispersed throughout a code base. Regardless of whether it is put in the code or in a wiki, it will eventually get dated. If it was in the code would you then not want to accept a pull request if a volunteer submitted code fixes but didn't update the documentation.

from bell.

To directly answer your question, I would not accept the PR as is. That's what is done on other Hapi repos.

Now, I would love to better document each provider from a user's perspective. I think that this is not documented currently (spread around the README.md and I am not sure if it is exhaustive). So document, exactly what type of options you can pass to it in a specific section of the README or its own markdown file.

Having a link to the specifics of each implementations, facebook docs, google docs, phabricator docs, ... I could see that being put with that documentation. But I would not summarize that information in here.

Would you be alright with such a solution or is there something I am missing?

from bell.

More documentation in any format would be good, so yes.

from bell.

Fixed by #139

from bell.

This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions.

from bell.