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

Low code workflow naming standard #339

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 17, 2023

Conversation

ARobinson26
Copy link
Contributor

Is this pull request a content or a code change? (Please fill in the relevant section and delete the other)

Code change

I can confirm:

Accessibility considerations

or

  • This change might impact accessibility, automated aXe tests cover the impact

or

  • This change might impact accessibility and is not covered by automated aXe tests - manual testing has been performed
    (If the change might impact accessibility then please add some further information here)

Content change

I can confirm:

  • Content does not include any code or configuration changes (excluding frontmatter information)
  • Content meets the content standards
    e.g. Writing a principle and Writing a standard
  • Content is suitable to open source, i.e.:
    • Content does not relate to unreleased gov policy
    • Content does not refer to anti-fraud mechanisms
    • Content does not include sensitive business logic
  • Last updated date for content is correct

@ARobinson26 ARobinson26 linked an issue Nov 7, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
3 tasks
@ARobinson26
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm unsure on whether we want to tag individual tools on standards. I feel like it would be a good idea to help find standards specific to the stack you're working with but appreciate it'd be difficult to keep maintained. Open to thoughts!

@edhamiltonHO
Copy link
Contributor

I'm unsure on whether we want to tag individual tools on standards. I feel like it would be a good idea to help find standards specific to the stack you're working with but appreciate it'd be difficult to keep maintained. Open to thoughts!

Good question this, would be good to solidify a position on it. Some thoughts:

They are only tags, don't think we want to be too prescriptive on how they are used as long as they work and are useful. We should try to avoid hanging much site functionality off them

Tags should provide links between different content articles that relate to the same topic, 1 to many. Therefore I wouldn't expect us to create tags for things that would likely only relate to one content article (not that that is necessarily the case here, but might be).

The site search will pick up on all text in in a page, you don't need to create tags for that to work. You could instead refer to the tools in a list in the content body itself, this could lead to duplication though - e.g. you wouldn't want to be listing tools/stack in every low code standard.

@jeff-horton-ho-sas
Copy link
Contributor

The site search will pick up on all text in in a page, you don't need to create tags for that to work. You could instead refer to the tools in a list in the content body itself, this could lead to duplication though - e.g. you wouldn't want to be listing tools/stack in every low code standard.

If we found content was being added just to optimise search, we could add support for a searchTerms list in the page front matter and append it to the page content when generating the search index https://github.com/UKHomeOffice/engineering-guidance-and-standards/blob/main/_includes/layouts/search-index.njk#L9

@edhamiltonHO
Copy link
Contributor

The site search will pick up on all text in in a page, you don't need to create tags for that to work. You could instead refer to the tools in a list in the content body itself, this could lead to duplication though - e.g. you wouldn't want to be listing tools/stack in every low code standard.

If we found content was being added just to optimise search, we could add support for a searchTerms list in the page front matter and append it to the page content when generating the search index https://github.com/UKHomeOffice/engineering-guidance-and-standards/blob/main/_includes/layouts/search-index.njk#L9

Yes, we did this with the standard id field in frontmatter, so people could search for content by that, e.g. SEGAS-00001 or 00001

@ARobinson26
Copy link
Contributor Author

Addressed comments above from @edhamiltonHO. I've also removed the tech stacks from the tags for now. 👍🏼

@ARobinson26 ARobinson26 marked this pull request as ready for review November 15, 2023 15:04
@ARobinson26 ARobinson26 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 15, 2023 15:04
@edhamiltonHO edhamiltonHO force-pushed the 338-low-code-workflow-naming-standard branch from b2efafd to 3504f68 Compare November 17, 2023 12:57
@edhamiltonHO
Copy link
Contributor

Rebased in order to verify commits and nudge checks to complete

@ARobinson26 ARobinson26 merged commit c5647cd into main Nov 17, 2023
3 checks passed
@edhamiltonHO edhamiltonHO deleted the 338-low-code-workflow-naming-standard branch January 5, 2024 13:57
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.

Low Code Workflow Naming Standard
4 participants