NOAA-FIMS / collaborative_workflow

contributors guide to FIMS, managing collaborations
https://noaa-fims.github.io/collaborative_workflow/
4 stars 1 forks source link

Sections of workflow to move to NMFS-wide guidance #144

Closed kellijohnson-NOAA closed 1 week ago

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

Task for EVERYONE if you have an opinion

Below in individual comments, sections of the collaborative workflow will be listed that are being proposed for moving to some NMFS-level location where more people can have access to it. Please navigate to each comment and place a 👍 if you agree it should be moved and a 👎 if you think that it should stay where it is at.

Timeline

Voting will close in 2 weeks. So, please have your votes in by EOD on June 28th, 2024!

Background

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. The collaborative workflow website is getting large, has medium costs regarding maintenance, and parts of it would be beneficial to more than just those NMFS employees in FIMS.

Describe the solution you'd like Some sections that provide NMFS-wide or larger guidance should be moved to a new location.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Neither of these were seen as viable alternatives during the FIMS seaside chat on this topic.

### Tasks
- [x] 06-developer-software-guide.Rmd
- [x] 07-contributor-guide.Rmd
- [x] 09-documentation-templates.Rmd
- [x] 10-testing.Rmd
- [x] 11-glossary.Rmd
kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

Chapter 6 Developer Software Guide

This entire section would be moved and instead a list of needed software and a single link providing the location of where installation information can be found would be provided.

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.3 Coding Good Practices

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.5 GitHub Collaborative Environment

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.7 Reporting Bugs

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.8 Suggesting Features

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.9 Branch Workflow

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.11 Commit Messages

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.12 Merge Conflicts

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.13 Pull Requests

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.14 Code Review

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.15 Clean up local branches

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

7.16 GitHub Actions

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

Chapter 9 Documentation Template

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

10.2 C++ unit testing and benchmarking

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

10.3 Templates for GoogleTest testing

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

10.4 R testing

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

10.5 Test case documentation template and examples

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

Testing Glossary

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 months ago

C++ Glossary

iantaylor-NOAA commented 3 months ago

I just voted 👎 for most things. If a NMFS-level document gets created, and fleshing out that document to make it useful outside of FIMS leads to lots of redundancy with the FIMS site, then I would happily reconsider.

k-doering-NOAA commented 3 months ago

One idea for a NMFS-wide place to move info to is the FIT blog. The repo that is building the blog is here: https://github.com/noaa-fisheries-integrated-toolbox/resources.

Another idea for reducing maintenance is linking directly to GitHub documentation rather than explaining something in the collaborative workflow, when possible. I think we've started to do this more and more, but flipping through the collaborative workflow doc, it looks like there are locations where we could do this more often.

cmlegault commented 3 months ago

Similar to Ian, I down voted most things because I don't want this knowledge to be lost, especially when we get more turnover in the FIMS team. While there is lots of guidance out there regarding many of these topics, having the approach we are using described in a single place prevents confusion and allows newcomers to see the approach we are using, especially when there are multiple good approaches and we just need to pick one. Thanks Kelli for asking about this though, it is good to do these sort of checks to make sure we are not creating unnecessary work as part of FIMS.

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 1 week ago

Thank you everyone for your votes. It is super helpful to know what is being used and what is not looked at. I have since condensed some portions, referenced links where others have the exact same documentation, and reorganized 3 sections. So, I will leave this issue open as I continue to work through more sections but I consider 06, 09, and 10 currently complete with #156.