feat(templates): add GCP best practices guide#100
Conversation
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change to (if exists and is applicable) otherwise it might try to search for that file
commands/conductor/newTrack.toml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would change to GCP keywords are mentioned to ensure the earlier words are included
commands/conductor/setup.toml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we split the style guides and platform guides into two sections? they dont have overlap, and i think here it doesnt make sense to combine them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm. are these recommendations from a source?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Responded in the internal chat thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we append the source like we do for the code style guides? Overall, this documents LGTM.
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here and in other places, i think style and platform guides should be separate
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here and in other places, i think style and platform guides should be separate
| - If `STEP` is "2.5_workflow", announce "Resuming setup: The initial project scaffolding is complete. Next, we will generate the first track." and proceed to **Phase 2 (3.0)**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.4_code_styleguides", announce "Resuming setup: Code Styleguides are configured. Next, we will check for Platform Guides." and proceed to **Section 2.5**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.5_platform_guides", announce "Resuming setup: Platform Guides are checked. Next, we will define the project workflow." and proceed to **Section 2.6**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.6_workflow", announce "Resuming setup: The initial project scaffolding is complete. Next, we will generate the first track." and proceed to **Section 2.7**. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mahimashanware @moisgobg ptal at the reference. I will them to be fixed in the separate ticket, but wanted to make sure this one is still correct semantically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is better, because by saying "go to 3.0" before, we might've skipped the 2.7 step.
LGTM
3 participants
Fixes #98.
Ran local tests:
https://screenshot.googleplex.com/rEQXuha8i38tBnE
https://screenshot.googleplex.com/3bRkuzoUMpzRt8Q