Closed hhkaos closed 11 months ago
I think yes to both Q1 and Q2 but for Q2 I think if we are going to include the path we should try to come up with an approach to include both AMD and ESM. @andygup do you know if we have info on the # of ESM vs AMD users?
Agreed, it would be good to include both AMD and ESM.
do you know if we have info on the # of ESM vs AMD users?
We are fairly certain that AMD users significantly outnumber ESM users. I can share what number(s) we look at via an internal-only conversation if you want more info.
@andygup got it. Ok then we can just do amd paths for now and add in (or switch to ESM) at some point in the future.
Oh sorry, I meant I do think we should include both AMD and ESM today and not wait.
One primary pain point for developers using ESM (also speaking for myself 😄 ) is translating AMD module paths, SDK samples and snippets to ESM.
Which should be the conventions about the snippet description?
Ideas/questions about how description should be defined:
Q1: It should be a proper description of what the snippet does, right?
A: I would say yes, and reuse text from the API reference whenever possible.
Q2: If it is a snippet related to a class/module, do we recommend including the path to it?
A: I would say yes (for now, the AMD Module path), but at the end probably, something like:
Convert a geometry from Web Mercator units (wkid: 3857) to geographic units (wkid: 4326). Uses: esri/geometry/support/webMercatorUtils
.