docs: TechDocs revamp techdocs architecture page
Remove/Update features which have been implemented.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -17,28 +17,26 @@ out-of-the box experience.
|
||||
|
||||
When you open a TechDocs site in Backstage, the
|
||||
[TechDocs Reader](./concepts.md#techdocs-reader) makes a request to
|
||||
`techdocs-backend` with the entity ID and the path of the current page you are
|
||||
looking at. In response, it receives the static files (HTML, CSS, JSON, etc.) to
|
||||
render on the page in TechDocs/Backstage.
|
||||
`techdocs-backend` plugin with the entity ID and the path of the current page
|
||||
you are looking at. In response, it receives the static files (HTML, CSS, JSON,
|
||||
etc.) to render on the page in TechDocs/Backstage.
|
||||
|
||||
The static files consist of HTML, CSS and Images generated by MkDocs. We remove
|
||||
all the JavaScript before adding them to Backstage for security reasons. And
|
||||
there are some additional techdocs metadata JSON files that TechDocs needs to
|
||||
render a site.
|
||||
there is an additional `techdocs_metadata.json` file that TechDocs needs to
|
||||
render a site. It's important that you use either
|
||||
[techdocs-cli](https://github.com/backstage/techdocs-cli) or
|
||||
[techdocs-container](https://github.com/backstage/techdocs-container) to
|
||||
generate the docs for the expected output.
|
||||
|
||||
The TechDocs Reader then applies a list of "Transformers" (see
|
||||
[Concepts](./concepts.md)) which modify the generated static HTML files for a
|
||||
number of use cases e.g. Remove certain headers, filter out some HTML tags, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Currently, we use the Backstage server's (or techdocs-backend's) local file
|
||||
system to store the generated files. Publishing to an external storage system
|
||||
(AWS S3, GCS, etc.) is also possible, but has not been implemented yet.
|
||||
|
||||
A word about `UrlReader` vs Git preparer - Right now, we have two ways to fetch
|
||||
files from its source repository for docs site generation. 1. By using Git
|
||||
and 2. By directly using Source control (GitHub, Azure, etc.) APIs. This work is
|
||||
heavily in progress. Please reach out to us on Discord in the #docs-like-code
|
||||
channel to talk about it.
|
||||
system to store the generated files. However, it's ideal to use an external
|
||||
storage system (e.g. AWS S3, GCS or Azure Blob Storage). Read more in
|
||||
[using cloud storage](using-cloud-storage.md).
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended deployment
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -50,22 +48,16 @@ The key difference in the recommended deployment approach is where the docs are
|
||||
built.
|
||||
|
||||
We assume each entity lives in a repository somewhere (GitHub, GitLab, etc.). We
|
||||
recommend using a CI/CD pipeline with the repository that has a dedicated
|
||||
step/job to generate docs for TechDocs. The generated static files are then
|
||||
stored in a cloud storage solution of your choice.
|
||||
[Track progress here](https://github.com/backstage/backstage/issues/3096).
|
||||
recommend [using a CI/CD pipeline](configuring-ci-cd.md) with the repository
|
||||
that has a dedicated step/job to generate docs for TechDocs. The generated
|
||||
static files are then [stored in a cloud storage](using-cloud-storage.md)
|
||||
solution of your choice.
|
||||
|
||||
Similar to how it is done in the Basic setup, the TechDocs Reader requests
|
||||
`techdocs-backend` plugin for the docs site. `techdocs-backend` then requests
|
||||
your configured storage solution for the necessary files and returns them to
|
||||
TechDocs Reader.
|
||||
|
||||
We will provide instructions, scripts and/or templates (e.g. GitHub Actions) to
|
||||
generate docs in your CI/CD system.
|
||||
[Track progress here.](https://github.com/backstage/backstage/issues/3400) You
|
||||
will be able to use `techdocs-cli` to generate docs and publish the generated
|
||||
docs site files to your cloud storage system.
|
||||
|
||||
Note about caching: We have noticed internally that some storage providers can
|
||||
be quite slow, which is why we are recommending a cache that sits between the
|
||||
TechDocs Reader and the Storage.
|
||||
@@ -98,7 +90,7 @@ permissions to publish the generated docs site files.
|
||||
**Q: Why do you have separate "basic" and "recommended" deployment approaches?**
|
||||
|
||||
A: The basic or out-of-the-box setup is what you get when you create a new app
|
||||
or do a git clone of the Backstage repository. We want the first experience to
|
||||
or do a `git clone` of the Backstage repository. We want the first experience to
|
||||
_just work magically_ so that you can have your first experience with TechDocs
|
||||
which is smooth. However, if you decide to deploy Backstage/TechDocs for
|
||||
production use, the basic setup would work but there are going to be downsides
|
||||
@@ -110,19 +102,21 @@ and we welcome such "Alternative" ideas from the community.
|
||||
**Q: Why don't you recommend techdocs-backend local filesystem to serve static
|
||||
files?**
|
||||
|
||||
A: It would make scaling a Backstage instance harder. Think about the case where
|
||||
we have distributed Backstage deployments. Using a separate file storage system
|
||||
for TechDocs makes it easier to do some operations like delete a docs site and
|
||||
wipe its contents.
|
||||
A: It makes scaling a Backstage instance harder. Think about the case where we
|
||||
have distributed Backstage deployments (e.g. multiple Kubernetes pods of your
|
||||
Backstage app). Using a separate/central file storage system for TechDocs is
|
||||
necessary to make sure sites are persistent when the servers/pods are restarted
|
||||
and avoid duplicating sites per instance. By having an external storage, we are
|
||||
making it easier to do some operations like delete a docs site or wipe its
|
||||
contents.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q: Why aren't docs built on the fly i.e. when users visits a page, generate
|
||||
docs site in real-time?**
|
||||
|
||||
A: Generating the content from Markdown on the fly is not optimal (although that
|
||||
is how the basic out-of-the-box setup is implemented). Storage solutions act as
|
||||
a cache for the generated static content. TechDocs is also currently built on
|
||||
MkDocs which does not allow us to generate docs per-page, so we would have to
|
||||
build all docs for a entity on every request.
|
||||
A: Generating the content from Markdown on the fly is not optimal. Storage
|
||||
solutions act as a cache for the generated static content. TechDocs is also
|
||||
currently built on MkDocs which does not allow us to generate docs per-page, so
|
||||
we would have to build all docs for a entity on every request.
|
||||
|
||||
**Q. Can you use the techdocs plugin without the techdocs-backend plugin?**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -147,21 +141,5 @@ We currently depend on MkDocs to parse doc sites written in Markdown. And we
|
||||
store the generated static assets and re-use it later to render in Backstage. A
|
||||
better (futuristic) approach will be to directly parse whatever type of source
|
||||
files you have in your docs repository and directly render in Backstage in
|
||||
real-time.
|
||||
|
||||
# Features status
|
||||
|
||||
Status of all the features mentioned above.
|
||||
|
||||
**In place ✅**
|
||||
|
||||
- Basic setup with techdocs-backend file server as storage.
|
||||
- Basic setup with cloud storage solution.
|
||||
- `techdocs-cli` is able to generate docs in CI/CD environment.
|
||||
- `techdocs-cli` is able to publish docs site to any storage.
|
||||
|
||||
**Work in progress 🚧**
|
||||
|
||||
**Not implemented yet ❌**
|
||||
|
||||
- `techdocs-backend` integration with Backstage access control management.
|
||||
real-time. You can read more in this
|
||||
[RFC - Simplifying TechDocs Frontend Architecture](https://github.com/backstage/backstage/issues/3998).
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user