Skip to content

RHDBUGS-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility#2190

Open
rh-tokeefe wants to merge 12 commits into
redhat-developer:mainfrom
rh-tokeefe:RHDHBUGS-2409
Open

RHDBUGS-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility#2190
rh-tokeefe wants to merge 12 commits into
redhat-developer:mainfrom
rh-tokeefe:RHDHBUGS-2409

Conversation

@rh-tokeefe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe commented May 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

IMPORTANT: Do Not Merge - To be merged by Docs Team Only

Merge to main and CP to release-1.10

Version(s):
1.10
Issue:
https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/RHDHBUGS-2409
Preview:
https://redhat-developer.github.io/red-hat-developers-documentation-rhdh/pr-2190/configure_configuring-rhdh/
Look for "Catalog entity descriptor reference"

@rhdh-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

rhdh-bot commented May 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

PR Build Results

Build passed -- 34/34 titles | 77s
Preview: https://redhat-developer.github.io/red-hat-developers-documentation-rhdh/pr-2190/

Content Quality Assessment

CQA Report

  • CQA-00a: Orphaned modules
  • CQA-00b: Directory structure
  • CQA-01: Vale AsciiDoc DITA compliance
  • CQA-02: Verify assembly structure
  • CQA-03: Verify content type metadata
  • CQA-04: Verify module templates
  • CQA-05: Verify required modular elements
  • CQA-06: Verify assemblies follow official template (one user story)
  • CQA-07: Verify TOC depth (max 3 levels)
  • CQA-08: Verify short description content quality
  • CQA-09: Verify short description format
  • CQA-10: Verify titles are brief, complete, and descriptive
  • CQA-11: Verify procedure prerequisites
  • CQA-12: Verify grammar and style (Vale)
  • CQA-13: Verify content matches declared type
  • CQA-14: Verify no broken links
  • CQA-15: Check redirects
  • CQA-16: Verify official product names
  • CQA-17: Verify legal disclaimers for preview features

Summary

Checks: 19 total, 19 pass, 0 fail

19 checks: 19 pass, 0 fail

Run node build/scripts/cqa/index.js --all --fix locally to review and auto-fix issues.

Updated 2026-05-19 16:53:12 UTC

@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe changed the title RHIDP-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, En… RHIDP-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility May 14, 2026
@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe changed the title RHIDP-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility RHIDBUGS-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility May 14, 2026
@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe changed the title RHIDBUGS-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility RHDBUGS-2409: Improve Documentation for Entities: Mandatory Fields, Entity Tabs, and Conditional Visibility May 14, 2026
04kash
04kash reviewed May 14, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/proc-define-catalog-entities.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/ref-catalog-entity-descriptor-reference.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/ref-catalog-entity-descriptor-reference.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/ref-catalog-entity-descriptor-reference.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/ref-catalog-entity-descriptor-reference.adoc Outdated
themr0c
themr0c reviewed May 18, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/proc-define-catalog-entities.adoc Outdated
@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe added the Technical review needed 🔩 Test all the procedures label May 18, 2026
04kash
04kash reviewed May 19, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@04kash 04kash left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just wondering if there is a specific reason to only have separate example configs for just the api, component, location and resource entity kinds and not all the 9 entity kinds? Not sure what the scope of the ticket is for this is but from just checking if the examples and mandatory fields mentioned are correct LGTM.

Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/ref-catalog-entity-descriptor-reference.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/proc-define-catalog-entities.adoc Outdated
Comment thread modules/configure_configuring-rhdh/proc-define-apis-in-the-catalog.adoc Outdated
@rh-tokeefe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

rh-tokeefe commented May 19, 2026

Just wondering if there is a specific reason to only have separate example configs for just the api, component, location and resource entity kinds and not all the 9 entity kinds? Not sure what the scope of the ticket is for this is but from just checking if the examples and mandatory fields mentioned are correct LGTM.

@04kash I focused the procedural tasks on Component, API, Resource, and Location because these are the core entities that a standard software developer manually creates and maintains within their application code repositories to register software. I think the other entities fall outside this daily developer workflow and having the reference information for them is reasonable.

@rh-tokeefe rh-tokeefe added Technical review done ⛅ Any procedure has been succesfully tested Peer review needed 📖 and removed Technical review needed 🔩 Test all the procedures labels May 19, 2026
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sonarqubecloud Bot commented May 19, 2026

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

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

Reviewers

@themr0c themr0c themr0c left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@04kash 04kash 04kash left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

do-not-merge/work-in-progress Peer review needed 📖 Technical review done ⛅ Any procedure has been succesfully tested

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@rh-tokeefe @rhdh-bot @themr0c @04kash