docs: updated to include a new way to break down start/stop #10
Conversation
ethanholz
changed the title
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.11% 94.11%
=======================================
Files 3 3
Lines 289 289
=======================================
Hits 272 272
Misses 17 17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@dwhswenson looking for guidance on if this is a bit clearer of an image around what is uses in which action. Open to improvements! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to change these such that the "required" columns under start/stop became "required for start" / "required for stop"? There are things marked as not required, which, now that the sections are nicely separated like this, might be misleading. (Basically anything that says, e.g., "will not start if not specified")
Similarly, there could be some clarification that the instance_mapping is the same as the output generated by the start process, and a clarification under Outputs that this is only an output from the start process.
A few changes, but I like this overall approach to make it clearer. I think this is already an improvement.
|
Agreed, more than happy to add these additions for clarity! |
The README table now includes info on the defaults as well as updates to AWS defaults
|
Added some new areas for clarity. The CI probably shouldn't update unless we are actively updating code, @dwhswenson this is ready for re-review. |
…nto docs/relationships
This PR aims to improve upon the lack of clear guidance on what is required for "start" vs "stop" actions related to #8.