Skip to content
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

Enrich the doc so that Marmot looks more friendly to new user. #93

Closed
wants to merge 20 commits into from

Conversation

wongfei2009
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Owner

@maxpert maxpert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Couple of changes to be done. Overall I like couple of improvements to doc, but this PR is mixing too many things in single PR. Lets split things up.

job1=$!

sleep 1
./marmot -config examples/node-2-config.toml -cluster-addr localhost:4222 -cluster-peers 'nats://localhost:4221/' &
./marmot -config examples/node-2-config.toml -cluster-addr localhost:4222 -cluster-peers 'nats://localhost:4221/,nats://localhost:4223/' &
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

there is no point of passing :4223 here because that node comes up in very last.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Understand. But I think this optimization makes new user wondering why. Peer configuration symmertic to node 2 and node 3 is more intutive. Also, when you look at the JetStream doc, it's also using a symetric example.
https://docs.nats.io/running-a-nats-service/configuration/clustering/jetstream_clustering

Indeed, I think specifying two having a different implication in term of HA.




## Sample Config File
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure if copy pasting a sample config is good idea when there is sample config file that is part of package.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's much better for the doc, but agree copy & paste is not a good idea. Will try to find if there's way to include inline file in mdx.

@@ -6,35 +6,38 @@ require (
github.com/BurntSushi/toml v1.3.2
github.com/asaskevich/EventBus v0.0.0-20200907212545-49d423059eef
github.com/denisbrodbeck/machineid v1.0.1
github.com/doug-martin/goqu/v9 v9.18.0
github.com/doug-martin/goqu/v9 v9.19.0
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's make sure this file is excluded, since we are only touching documentation files

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
package main_test
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would have these E2E tests in separate PR. Let's keep this PR focused on docs

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
package main_test
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as below let's keep tests in different PR only go for docs in this PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants