docs: fix formatting and order of contribution guide content #3880
Conversation
|
Test report for this run is available at: https://test-integrations-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/integrations-test-reports/rudder-transformer/3880/test-report.html |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3880 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 89.05% 90.47% +1.41%
===========================================
Files 618 615 -3
Lines 33071 32320 -751
Branches 7814 7677 -137
===========================================
- Hits 29452 29242 -210
+ Misses 3336 2854 -482
+ Partials 283 224 -59 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| * [Overview of integration development journey](#overview-of-integration-development-journey) | ||
| * [1. Setup rudder-transformer and understand the code structure](#1-setup-rudder-transformer-and-understand-the-code-structure) | ||
| * [2. Write code for a v0 source integration](#2-write-code-for-a-v0-source-integration) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As v0 API got deprecated now, we can suggest to write in v1 spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed it. Now we are directing contributors towards src/v1/sources for source integration. But we still use example of v0 source integration.
@krishna2020 What are the key differences between v0 vs v1 source integration a contributor must know? Context: Currently, I am using a v0 source integration example (Slack) in this guide, I want to understand what additional changes are required in the guide given that now we've updated steps to direct contributors towards src/v1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another follow up question: Are we planning to migrate current v0 sources to v1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
v1 will additionally have source config also as an input along with the event
We already highlighted this in the recent server transformer matrix docs
Yes, migration for v0 sources is also in the plan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understood. The difference is in the process function signature (arguments)
v0-process(event)v1-process({ event: eventData, source: sourceConfigData }- And in
v2, we will replaceeventwithrequest
And the output type is same in all these versions?
So the best solution is to simply use v1 source example to avoid any confusion. Which will require a major change in the first section of this content. How about we merge this PR for now, and then I raise another PR replacing v0 source example with v1 source example?
|
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Improve contribution guide based on the latest feedback.
Add more info for destination test, fix issues in comprehensiveness, add table of content, fix formatting, etc.
What is the related Linear task?
No Linear ASK created
Please explain the objectives of your changes below
Improve comprehensiveness of contribution guide
Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?
N/A
Any new dependencies introduced with this change?
N/A
Any new generic utility introduced or modified. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Any technical or performance related pointers to consider with the change?
N/A
@coderabbitai review
Developer checklist
My code follows the style guidelines of this project
No breaking changes are being introduced.
All related docs linked with the PR?
All changes manually tested?
Any documentation changes needed with this change?
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes?
Is the PR limited to one linear task?
Are relevant unit and component test-cases added in new readability format?
Reviewer checklist
Is the type of change in the PR title appropriate as per the changes?
Verified that there are no credentials or confidential data exposed with the changes.