#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 jlaska):
Replying to [comment:3 tflink]:
> 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?
Yeah, a bit more detail might help, but this might be for my education.
I'm hoping the recommendations we offer are actionable for maintainers.
Perhaps they point to existing documents on packaging, or an SOP on
resolving issues </overkill>. Of course, I don't think we need to detail
*every* possible combination, but maybe thinking about specific failures,
and more clearly articulating what the maintainers did to resolve the
issue would help?
This got me wondering if it would help to outline several more (unique)
examples of depcheck test failures in the section ''Understanding
failures''. Then, for each failure listed, include a brief statement on
the actual corrective action taken. In the example given already, the
corrective action was to include the ''sigar.i686'' package in the
x86_64
f14 repo?
Then, the section ''Fixing failures'' continues as is, with just
recaping
and summarizing recommended corrective action.
I'll be happy to do some mock-ups/drafts if you can point me towards
unique depcheck failure logs.
--
Ticket URL: <
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/326#comment:4>
AutoQA <
http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project