search

mavlink / MAVSDK-docs

MAVSDK Guide Docs - Source Code
https://mavsdk.mavlink.io
Other
24 stars 37 forks source link

Pass over README and quickstart #234

Closed julianoes closed 3 years ago

julianoes commented 3 years ago

I'm doing a pass through the docs trying to clean it up a bit.

Closes https://github.com/mavlink/MAVSDK/issues/949.

hamishwillee commented 3 years ago

I can look at this Weds. If you think it's about right then merge and I'll do a post review then.

julianoes commented 3 years ago

@hamishwillee I would appreciate a review, Wed is fine though. I will continue with it today.

hamishwillee commented 3 years ago

Many many links have failed - see

warn: link to "api_reference/classmavsdk_1_1_system.md" on page "cpp/README.md" could not be resolved
warn: link to "api_reference/classmavsdk_1_1_mission.md" on page "cpp/README.md" could not be resolved
...

I had folder structure like this:

/assets/fol1/fol3
/en/folder1
/en/folder2
/en/folder3

This is not a requirement of gitbook, but it makes things easier for linking because I know that the relative link between any files is always done like this ../folderX/file (or for assets I have to jump back 2 ../../fol1....

By using deeper nesting you have broken most of the links, but also you are going to have to go through and manually work out what the nesting is for each case. 

/assets/fol1/fol3
/en/folder1
/en/folder1/folder2
/en/folder3

Minimally it is probably a good idea to at least stick to one level within a language going forward. Most links will work OK because most links tend to be to be the same prog language. Assets will all change, but would be just one link deeper ../../../

/assets/fol1/fol3
/en/cpp/guide
/en/cpp/examples
/en/python/examples
/en/python/guide
/en/contribution/

Or you could move back to two layer and use a prefix:

/assets/fol1/fol3
/en/cpp_guide
/en/cpp_examples
/en/python_examples

That's a decision for you. I lean towards using the nesting.

julianoes commented 3 years ago

@hamishwillee

That's a decision for you. I lean towards using the nesting.

I went with nesting and fixed the links. I now understand why it was the way it was though :).

julianoes commented 3 years ago

@hamishwillee alright, I've pushed my changes for today. I would argue this is good enough for now to be merged and then we can iterate on it later. Thanks again for your help.

hamishwillee commented 3 years ago

I did some minor subediting but it looks great. Merging so we can get it in and iterate.