|
| 1 | +Discussion |
| 2 | +---------- |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +The following is a collection of thoughts, ideas and plans we've gone through |
| 5 | +in the last year or so. I wanted to try to get this "down on paper" to make it |
| 6 | +easier to discuss... |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +Here's the TLDR; in terms of actual blocking TODOs if we wanted to stick with |
| 9 | +this branch: |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +- [ ] Finish porting the markdown process to `remark` (may require new plugins) |
| 12 | +- [ ] Rethink external population process |
| 13 | +- [ ] Extract anchors into `_content.json` via `DirectoryTreePlugin` |
| 14 | +- [ ] Finish re-incorporating mobile sidebar |
| 15 | +- [x] Re-integrate google-analytics (Fernando) |
| 16 | +- [ ] Re-incorporate `redirects.json` |
| 17 | +- [ ] Populate page title in `server.jsx` (fernando) |
| 18 | +- [ ] Finish `Navigation` component (greg) |
| 19 | +- [x] Add custom route for landing page (greg) |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +Some of these should be fairly quick adds now that the site works. The two |
| 22 | +toughest ones are most likely the markdown parsing and external population. The |
| 23 | +thing to keep in mind with those two however is that they're going to be an |
| 24 | +issue no matter what our build system is. The following section |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +## Markdown Processing |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +Whether we go with pure `webpack`, or `gatsby` it seems `remark` is the way to |
| 30 | +go and I believe __@wooorm__ (creator of `remark`) would help us out with that. |
| 31 | +This issue from `webpack-defaults` contains some discussion and alternatives |
| 32 | +though the decision was pretty clear it seems: |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +https://github.com/webpack-contrib/webpack-defaults/issues/73 |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +We do have a bunch of custom `markdown` processing, however for a bunch of it |
| 37 | +`remark` plugins already exist: |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +- `remark-autolink-headings` |
| 40 | +- `remark-mermaid` (#469) |
| 41 | +- `remark-highlight.js` (though we do have a custom prism theme) |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +And here's what isn't covered yet (though probably could be with new plugins |
| 44 | +and help from __@wooorm__): |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +- Mobile table customizations |
| 47 | +- Code with links and collapsible sections (`<details>`) |
| 48 | +- Custom blockquotes (i.e. `T>`, `W>`, and `?>`) |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +I think we may want to rethink some of this though. For example, is it 100% |
| 51 | +necessary for us to support inline linking and collapsing within code? There |
| 52 | +might be other ways to lay out those sections that don't require advanced |
| 53 | +parsing behavior. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +## Markdown Formatting |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +Both `remark-lint` and `prettier` were discussed in `webpack-defaults` issue. |
| 59 | +Either are fine with me, but I think we should get something in place soon. It |
| 60 | +is a pain to have to nitpick things like two line breaks before headers. On top |
| 61 | +of that we should probably format everything at 80 characters for improved |
| 62 | +readability. Both `remark` and `prettier` are capable of rewriting the file |
| 63 | +with standardized formatting so we just need to pick one. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +## External Content Population |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +Jeremy and I discussed this a while back and I agree with his suggestion re |
| 69 | +using a steady prefix for all external documents that we can easily |
| 70 | +`.gitignore`, e.g. an underscore `_`. I've done this before on other projects |
| 71 | +and it has worked really well. This approach removes the need for many of the |
| 72 | +`.gitignore` entries as well as the need for a `generated` folder. I think |
| 73 | +it'll also make the i18n folks happier as they can simply remove the `_` from |
| 74 | +their `.gitignore` and we don't have to maintain a separate `translation` |
| 75 | +branch. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +I could be missing something here, but -- if not -- I think we should go this |
| 78 | +direction. I did this on the `rebuild` branch but haven't started pulling in |
| 79 | +external files yet (or updated the `npm run fetch` script). |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +## `/src` Directory |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +I'm a fan of having the most simplistic structure possible. |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +__/assets__ |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +Unless there's any that are used in multiple places, I think we can just move |
| 89 | +each to the `/components/***` directory where they're used. Depending on build |
| 90 | +process, we could also create `/src/content/images` for any images used within |
| 91 | +the actual content of the site. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +> __@jeremenichelli__ noted that it can be useful to have a single location for |
| 94 | +> `assets` so they're a little easier to find. |
| 95 | +
|
| 96 | +__/styles__ |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +On the `rebuild` branch I created a simple `Markdown` component that isolates |
| 99 | +all the markdown styling to a single location and makes it much easier to use. |
| 100 | +With that done, all that's left in `src/styles` is the base styling which |
| 101 | +should probably just go in `Site` component's directory. We would have to put |
| 102 | +the `/partials` somewhere and start inlining `/icons` as discussed. |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +__/utilities__ |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +The `markdown.js` file will be obsolete once we've ported to `remark`. Ideally, |
| 107 | +the `highlight.js` utility will also be replaced by a simpler `remark-***` |
| 108 | +plugin. If `test-local-storage.js` is all that's left, maybe we just scrap this |
| 109 | +folder and move that utility to the one place it's used (`NotificationBar`). |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +## Build Process |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +I __was__ able to get the `StaticSiteGeneratorPlugin` working and it __did__ |
| 115 | +significantly improve build speed. That said, it still has it's quirks and |
| 116 | +there's a few things we'd still need to resolve if we went this direction |
| 117 | +(marked by `TODO`s). The biggest of these is |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +- Getting dynamic `import()` statements to work with the plugin. |
| 120 | +- Getting the `CommonsChunkPlugin` to work. |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | +Essentially, I was planning on: |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +- Generating a bunch of HTML pages for initial load and SEO. |
| 125 | +- Generating `.js` chunks containing code for lazy loading in SPA mode. |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +This is similar to Gatsby and other PWA generators in the sense that the site |
| 128 | +would be built fully (meaning an actual html file for every page), but then |
| 129 | +turn into an SPA as soon as you loaded a single page. |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +> __@jeremenichelli__ noted that whatever we end up with, it should be simple |
| 132 | +> and easy to understand for contributors. I think this makes a lot of sense, |
| 133 | +> and if we can't keep the `rebuild` branch fairly simple, then `gatsby` is |
| 134 | +> probably a better way to go as it would do many of the same things for us |
| 135 | +> without as much overhead. We'd lose some control over the nitty-gritty bits |
| 136 | +> but we'd be passing over a lot of work over to `gatsby`. |
| 137 | +
|
| 138 | +__UPDATE__ |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +This is now working via dual configs exported as an array from |
| 141 | +`webpack.prod.js`. The site is now a both a statically generated site as well |
| 142 | +as an SPA (once you've entered any given page). The last key piece of the build |
| 143 | +process (besides figuring out markdown parsing) would be to incorporate an |
| 144 | +Service Worker making the site a full PWA (and knocking out that issue). |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | +## Versioning & Releases |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +I'm a huge fan of `standard-version` and have been following the |
| 150 | +[conventionalcommits][1] spec very closely, even when merging MRs. We haven't |
| 151 | +really started versioning this repo or generating changelogs but we should be |
| 152 | +able to do so fairly easily if we keep following the convention and use the |
| 153 | +`standard-version` utility. |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +I think the flow should look something like this: |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +- Any pushes to `master` are still continually deployed. |
| 158 | +- If a new minor or major comes along in the core repo... |
| 159 | + - Make sure content reflects the changes in the new version. |
| 160 | + - Run `standard-version --release-as [webpack release version]`. |
| 161 | + |
| 162 | +Then the git tags can be used to archive the last of every major version and |
| 163 | +allow a version changing interface (e.g. a dropdown) to look at the content |
| 164 | +from major to major. We can also customize the changelog generation to include |
| 165 | +info on `docs(...)` commits (by default it only does `fix`, `feat` and |
| 166 | +`BREAKING CHANGE`). |
| 167 | + |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +[1]: http://conventionalcommits.org/ |
0 commit comments