DOC Challenges and Proposals
- 1 Intention of this document
- 2 Challenges
- 2.1 Content
- 2.2 Process
- 2.2.1 Process description
- 2.2.2 Writing
- 2.2.3 Converting (Wiki-to-RST)
- 2.2.4 Building (RST)
- 3 Proposals
- 3.1 Create and approve guidelines for ...
- 3.1.1 Usage
- 3.1.2 Content
- 3.1.2.1 RTD: ONAP Software related
- 3.1.2.2 Wiki: ONAP (sub)projects and development related
- 3.1.2.3 Responsibilities
- 3.1.3 Process
- 3.1.4 Presentation
- 3.1 Create and approve guidelines for ...
- 4 Approach
- 5 Questions
- 6 Related Tickets
- 7 Wiki-RTD Guideline Presentation
- 8 Document History
Intention of this document
With the listed observations and described proposals we would start the discussion of how we should continue in the documentation project. We are aiming an aligned view on the fields of improvements and their prioritization.
Challenges
Content
Software related content (Wiki, RTD)
hard to find due to the split between Wiki and RTD
still available (and publicly editable) in the Wiki even after transfer to RTD
partly outdated
partly incomplete
partly missing at all
E2E doc partly missing
even in the case all single (functional) projects would be well documented, we need end-to-end documentation that explains (user) processes / use cases holistically (spanning over several ONAP modules)
no QA in the release process
Projects related content (Wiki)
partly outdated project profiles
relation to a specific release unclear
project scope might evolve over time; no info about this
activity state unclear
Process
Process description
Wiki: "Documenting ONAP" partly outdated
RTD: "Dev Guides - Creating Documentation" partly outdated
Writing
writing doc in RST format is not fully accepted
it is an error prone, mainly manual process
Wiki: Easy to create doc here - but afterwards content often remains only in the Wiki
Converting (Wiki-to-RST)
no simple solution to convert Wiki content automatically to the RST format
Wiki as a dev environment for doc?
Problem: linking to other doc elements (rst) possible?
Building (RST)
approx. 1500 build errors (@RTD only, elalto-verify-13.11.2019)
warnings are ignored
failed builds are not recognized
currently one large build which includes all project doc as submodules
expertise for doc tooling & process is no longer available
no QA in the release process
Proposals
Create and approve guidelines for ...
Usage
Wiki
writing documentation in RST format and using gerrit for reviews remains the first choice
as an alternative the Wiki can be used for development and collaboration on documentation
doc must be released afterwards in RST format for RTD
RTD
the only source for released documentation
ambition: no build errors
at least no errors which are causing content not showing up at RTD
Content
RTD: ONAP Software related
alligned high-level-view on chapters, subchapters and to-be-addressed readerships
ONAP overview documentation
ONAP architecture
ONAP developer guide
ONAP user guide (E2E)
ONAP (sub)project guide
release notes
architecture
logging & diagnostics
human interfaces
admin guide
deployment / installation
config
user guide
api (consumed, offered)
ONAP admin guide
ONAP release notes
all grouped by release
doc requirements (must-haves) depending on the type of doc (functional, non-functional, E2E, ...)
to be proved in the dev process
TODO: develop doc requirements / templates
Wiki: ONAP (sub)projects and development related
project management (meetings, plans, milestones, members, ...)
project dev guides
ongoing activities and discussions
Exception: "dev environment" for documentation
page header information names ...
targeted release
status
under development
release candidate
released (incl. link to RTD)
OPTION 1: delete content after "ready for release" at RTD
OPTION 2: mark as "released at RTD" and keep for further "development"
Drawback: manual conversion to RST!
Responsibilities
doc project
overall doc structure and build process
ONAP user guide (E2E)
managed by doc project
done together by doc project and subject matter experts
ONAP doc dev guide
ONAP release notes
ONAP overview documentation
(sub)projects
(sub)project release notes
ONAP (sub)product guide
OPEN: ONAP architecture?
Process
QA for content and build in place
available documentation (from the earlier release) will be validated and approved for the next release during the development process
result: if content is available in the doc for the specific release, than it is definitely valid for this release
write (Wiki) & convert (RST) as easy as possible: evaluate "Confluence2MD" and create a (semi)automatic solution
build doc asynchronous / per project and get rid of the monolithic build / submodules
Presentation
doc can be easily searched and filtered
easy understandable overall structure of chapters and subchapters
clearly adressing the type of readership (user, developer, admin, manager ...)
RTD & sphinx theme
doc must be appealing to the readership
well defined set of fonts and colors
Approach
For content in responsibility of the doc project
analyse existing Wiki content
TODO: check assessment of Eric Debeau
TODO: statistics to show status of doc (outdated, incomplete, missing, ...)
mark existing Wiki pages which are not yet migrated to RTD
delete existing Wiki pages which are migrated to RTD ?
define & implement QA process
update "Contribution" chapters in Wiki and RTD depending on the results of this activity
For content in responsibility of the (sub)projects
analyse existing Wiki content
mark existing Wiki pages which are not yet migrated to RTD
OPT: delete existing Wiki pages which are migrated to RTD
define & implement QA process
To be discussed
TODO: search for an expert in tooling / doc writing that can support
TODO: support from LF?
TODO: evaluate tooling and best-practice process for open source documentation and increase acceptance of developers
TODO: reactivate / update doc team liaisons (as we had it in earlier times)?
PROPOSAL: Complete restart with the above discussed QA processes in place to build up a new documentation and using only validated / approved and therefore valid content. Even if we are expecting, that the upcoming doc releases will be incomplete or empty in large areas in the beginning.
PROPOSAL: Under context of E2E doc for users, an initial proposal is being discussed to start documenting subset deployment (2020-01-16 ver. , 2020-01-23 ver.)
Questions
What is the value of more and more ONAP features without having them - and other, important basics - not well documented?
Example: SDC usage
Are we (developers, PTL, members of the doc project, TSC, ...) able to master the current challenges for ONAP doc without spending much (!) more time and effort for documentation?
Are we willing to spend much (!) more time and effort for documentation?
How can "we" incentivize "good" documentation?
Related Tickets
DOC-573: Proposal for the devision between Wiki and RTDClosed
ONAPARC-274: ONAP Current Architecture DocumentationIn Progress
Wiki-RTD Guideline Presentation
Proposal (updated 23.1.2020)
Document History
2020-01-07 Ticket added to "Related Tickets"
2019-12-19 Added proposal to evaluate "Confluence2MD" for semi-automatic Wiki-2-RST conversion
2019-12-11 Added "Related Tickets"; Minor editorial changes
2019-12-10 Initial doc based on the (modified) mindmap. Alignment to be done.
2020-01-17 Added TSC/PTL draft slides for Guideline