#326: Create user-facing documentation for depcheck
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: tflink | Owner: tflink
Type: task | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: 0.5.0
Component: documentation | Resolution:
Keywords: |
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment (by tflink):
Looking good, thanks for taking this one Tim. I made a few
[
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=AutoQA_tests%2FDepcheck&a...
wiki/wording changes], please feel free to accept or reject.
Looks good to me, I didn't realize that some of those macros existed.
In the section ''Fixing Failures'', it mentions
adding or removing
dependencies. Would it make sense to include an example of each of those
scenarios in the ''Understanding failures''?
I think that the errors are going to look the same either way since the
only thing we really detect is missing dependencies. Or are you suggesting
that the fixes go into more detail and show fixing a failed depcheck run
in both ways?
Also, the suggested resolution ''Remove missing
dependencies'' seems
odd, but I might not be in the right mindset. How do you remove something
that is missing? Should it read, ''Remove incorrect dependencies''
instead?
Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be removing something which
is already missing. I changed the wording on that.
--
Ticket URL: <
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/326#comment:3>
AutoQA <
http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project