Clarify npm package publishing via CI/CD
What does this MR do?
In
I've made the following changes:
- Dropped the entire
Authenticating via the `.npmrc`
section withinPublishing a package via a CI/CD pipeline
, and promoted the content of the subsection (level 3 heading) with the same name into the top section (level 2 heading).- The dropped section was largely a repeat of the identically named section further above, and didn't really make that much sense in CI/CD context:
- The remaining content in
Publishing a package via a CI/CD pipeline
is a CI script that creates a.npmrc
file, in a way that would overwrite an existing file – so it didn't make sense to just above tell people to create this file – I'm not sure what the intention here was, but I think it's better to just refer/link to the above section that explains the.npmrc
file usage in general
- Fixed the CI script section of the remaining content in
Publishing a package via a CI/CD pipeline
– it was missing one of the two lines that you need in the resulting.npmrc
file, so if with the existing example you would get auth errors - Renamed the CI job from
deploy
topublish-npm
so it's more descriptive (and less confusion with the stage name being the same) - Replaced
your_project_id
andyour_domain_name
with predefined CI variables – I think these placeholders were just there as theAuthenticating via the `.npmrc`
section was copied from the more general section above, but if we're in CI context we can just use predefined variables for that - Moved some more words around to make the resulting new structure work better
- Use "will" instead of "should" in the last sentence
I hope this makes sense, let me know if the changes are unclear
Related issues
Author's checklist
-
Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course. -
Follow the: -
If you're adding or changing the main heading of the page (H1), ensure that the product tier badge is added. -
If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on: - The documentation page's metadata.
- The associated Technical Writer.
If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:
~"frontend"
~"backend"
~"type::bug"
~"database"
These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.
Reviewer's checklist
Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.
If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.
-
If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert. - Technical writer review items:
-
Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date. -
Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR. -
Ensure a release milestone is set. - If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
-
The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior
, say something likeDefault behavior when you close an issue
. -
The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK
, say something likeConfigure GDK
. -
Any task steps should be written as a numbered list. - If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
-
-
-
Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.