@blueorangutan docbuild

@sureshanaparti a Jenkins job has been kicked to build the document. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

QA-Doc build preview: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/builds/docs-build/pr/504. (QA-JID 339)

@rajujith Update the usage types (still the record formats for these to be updated)

@blueorangutan docbuild

@sureshanaparti a Jenkins job has been kicked to build the document. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

QA-Doc build preview: https://qa.cloudstack.cloud/builds/docs-build/pr/504. (QA-JID 342)

quite frankly I am against this change. there is a list usage types API and it should document the usage types. adding/updating the docs on this in creating a split source of truth.

quite frankly I am against this change. there is a list usage types API and it should document the usage types. adding/updating the docs on this in creating a split source of truth.

@DaanHoogland, The doc in its current form has already diverged from the source of truth, so adding the missing usage types wouldn’t introduce any additional inconsistency.

As a potential improvement, perhaps we could sync the doc with the missing Usage Types and clearly mention that users should refer to the list Usage Types API for the most up-to-date information?

I was hoping to add some details related to Backup usage to the doc, but currently, Backup isn’t even mentioned as a usage type.

@abh1sar ,

quite frankly I am against this change. there is a list usage types API and it should document the usage types. adding/updating the docs on this in creating a split source of truth.

@DaanHoogland, The doc in its current form has already diverged from the source of truth, so adding the missing usage types wouldn’t introduce any additional inconsistency.

I do not believe that is a reason to let it like this. I think the paragraph should be removed and replaced with a link/command to retrieve the data from the API. We are creating a path to continuous maintenance and probably technical debt if we allow for documentation of things which are also documented in code.

As a potential improvement, perhaps we could sync the doc with the missing Usage Types and clearly mention that users should refer to the list Usage Types API for the most up-to-date information?

If this is implemented in an update script we still need to have it run and humans will forget.

I was hoping to add some details related to Backup usage to the doc, but currently, Backup isn’t even mentioned as a usage type.

That should be solved in the source (i.e. the API doc, not in this file)

cc @Pearl1594 @sureshanaparti @rajujith

@sureshanaparti @rajujith @weizhouapache , I do not like this way maintaining this information but am not going to reject it. Should we merge this?

@sureshanaparti @rajujith @weizhouapache , I do not like this way maintaining this information but am not going to reject it. Should we merge this?

@DaanHoogland
do you have a way to maintain the information ?

@sureshanaparti @rajujith @weizhouapache , I do not like this way maintaining this information but am not going to reject it. Should we merge this?

@DaanHoogland do you have a way to maintain the information ?

In my opinion we should return the description in the table with the list usagetypes ouput, and only describe examples and use cases here. (#504 (comment))