Skip to content

[ci] Update Typedoc (dd51fe4) - Core 3#3456

Closed
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
typedoc-dd51fe4
Closed

[ci] Update Typedoc (dd51fe4) - Core 3#3456
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
typedoc-dd51fe4

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Auto-generated PR to update Typedoc documentation from clerk/javascript@dd51fe4

@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from a team as a code owner June 22, 2026 19:41
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
clerk-docs Ready Ready Preview Jun 22, 2026 8:27pm

Request Review

@SarahSoutoul

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is failing because the file doesn't exist. But it will exist once this PR is merged. So waiting on that to be merged before merging this.

Screenshot 2026-06-22 at 1 59 48 pm

Have added some links to the ignore typedoc object, as these links aren't being used anyway, but will put up a PR to document them on the docs. So ultimately, will remove the links from being ignored.

| Parameter | Type | Description |
| ------ | ------ | ------ |
| `domainName` | `string` | The name of the domain to create. |
| `params?` | `Pick`\<[`CreateOrganizationDomainParams`](../create-organization-domain-params.mdx), `"enrollmentMode"`\> | Optional parameters, including the `enrollmentMode` to assign to the new domain. |

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do you have plans to handle this ^ or would you like me to take a look! there actually might be something in docs(backend,shared): Generate typedoc output for backend docs that handles this because I think I ran into a Pick issue and solved it in that PR

@SarahSoutoul SarahSoutoul Jun 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After investigating this, I don't think it's an issue with the Pick but more that the link is broken. I tried implementing the logic you had in the backend PR but it didn't change anything - the link was still broken. Here is the fix I implemented: clerk/javascript#8957. But if you find a better fix - feel freee to push it there! @alexisintech

Comment on lines +3 to +6
Issues a fresh TXT challenge for each of the given domains in a single
request. Each resolved domain's `ownershipVerification` carries the
`txtRecordName` and `txtRecordValue` the org admin must publish. A single
bad domain does not fail the batch; it lands in `errors`.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the formatting here needs to get fixed!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This Typedoc isn't being used in the docs currently so I think we can follow up and iterate later on this. Priority is for the broken link in clerk-properties to go.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

handled in this PR: clerk/javascript#8956

`txtRecordName` and `txtRecordValue` the org admin must publish. A single
bad domain does not fail the batch; it lands in `errors`.

Returns an [`OrganizationDomainsBulkOwnershipVerificationResource`](/docs/reference/types/organization-domains-bulk-ownership-verification-resource) object.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yup that's why I put it in the ignore stuff for now. That Typedoc isn't used in the docs anyway atm.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This Typedoc isn't being used in the docs currently so I think we can follow up and iterate later on this. Priority is for the broken link in clerk-properties to go.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

documented this resource in this PR: clerk/javascript#8956

| Property | Type | Description |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <a id="affiliationemailaddress"></a> `affiliationEmailAddress` | <code>null \| string</code> | The email address used to verify the affiliation with the domain, or `null` if none has been provided. |
| <a id="affiliationverification"></a> `affiliationVerification` | <code>null \| [OrganizationDomainVerification](organization-domain-verification.mdx)</code> | The affiliation verification details for the domain, or `null` if the domain has not been verified. |

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the all of the organization domain additions are for the upcoming Self-serve SSO feature - and it's unfortunate they haven't documented things as we've asked :/ I can ping that team to get these things documented

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This Typedoc isn't being used in the docs currently so I think we can follow up and iterate later on this. Priority is for the broken link in clerk-properties to go.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed this link in clerk/javascript#8956

Comment on lines +3 to +5
Resolves the published TXT record for each of the given domains in a single
request to complete ownership verification. A single bad domain does not
fail the batch; it lands in `errors`.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

formatting here needs to get fixed!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This Typedoc isn't being used in the docs currently so I think we can follow up and iterate later on this. Priority is for the broken link in clerk-properties to go.

@alexisintech

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reached out to Tu regarding some of these missing types!

Screenshot 2026-06-22 at 14 25 56

@SarahSoutoul

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing this in favor of: #3459.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants