8000 Improve v3 docs regarding compatibility with vite_rails by mattbrictson · Pull Request #8548 · activeadmin/activeadmin · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Improve v3 docs regarding compatibility with vite_rails #8548

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

mattbrictson
Copy link
Contributor

Active Admin v3 can be used with the vite_rails gem, but the instructions for doing so are buried in a discussion comment.

Also, using a modern build system like Vite will often lead to deprecation warnings due to the older color functions used in Active Admin's SCSS assets.

To address these issues, I've made some small improvements to Active Admin's docs. Namely:

  • Add a vite_rails section to the installation document.
  • Mention the SCSS deprecation warnings in the "gotchas" document, with a workaround that specifically works with Vite.

As discussed in #8492, it would be great to solve the deprecation warnings rather than just hiding them, but that will require some significant refactoring, which can be a separate PR. In the meantime I wanted to improve the documentation to at least point users in the right direction.

Active Admin v3 can be used with the vite_rails gem, but the
instructions for doing so are buried in a discussion comment.

Also, using a modern build system like Vite will often lead to
deprecation warnings due to the older color functions used in Active
Admin's SCSS assets.

To address these issues, I've made some small improvements to Active
Admin's docs. Namely:

- Add a vite_rails section to the installation document.
- Mention the SCSS deprecation warnings in the "gotchas" document, with
  a workaround that specifically works with Vite.

As discussed in
<activeadmin#8492>, it would
be great to solve the deprecation warnings rather than just hiding them,
but that will require some significant refactoring, which can be a
separate PR. In the meantime I wanted to improve the documentation to at
least point users in the right direction.
Copy link
codecov bot commented Nov 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (3-0-stable@c16c6ee). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             3-0-stable    #8548   +/-   ##
=============================================
  Coverage              ?   99.19%           
=============================================
  Files                 ?      194           
  Lines                 ?     4965           
  Branches              ?        0           
=============================================
  Hits                  ?     4925           
  Misses                ?       40           
  Partials              ?        0           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

@javierjulio
Copy link
Member

@mattbrictson thank you. This is very helpful. I don't mind duplicating on the v3 branch for historical purposes but this should be on the default branch, at least in addition, because that's the only place from where we deploy the docs to the web. Would you be ok with creating another PR against the default branch? I'm treating the docs there as v3 for now. We are trying to figure out how to split the docs within Vitepress.

@mattbrictson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@javierjulio Yes, I'll open another PR for the default branch.

Copy link
Member
@javierjulio javierjulio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@javierjulio javierjulio merged commit f5fff24 into activeadmin:3-0-stable Nov 20, 2024
19 checks passed
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
0