Skip to content

DITAfication of the tuning guide#4630

Open
AkshayGadhaveRH wants to merge 3 commits intotheforeman:masterfrom
AkshayGadhaveRH:tuning-guide-ditafication
Open

DITAfication of the tuning guide#4630
AkshayGadhaveRH wants to merge 3 commits intotheforeman:masterfrom
AkshayGadhaveRH:tuning-guide-ditafication

Conversation

@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor

JIRA:
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-36308

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.17/Katello 4.19
  • Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18; orcharhino 7.6)
  • Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
  • Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4; orcharhino 7.5)
  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only; orcharhino 7.3)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.12.

@github-actions github-actions bot added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels Feb 3, 2026
@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Basic changes pushed so far. This PR is WIP.

@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH removed the Needs testing Requires functional testing label Feb 3, 2026
@jafiala jafiala self-requested a review February 3, 2026 09:56
Copy link
Contributor

@jafiala jafiala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@Lennonka Lennonka added style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective and removed Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Feb 3, 2026
@Lennonka
Copy link
Contributor

Lennonka commented Feb 3, 2026

If you haven't made any factual changes, the PR doesn't need tech review.
We should generally avoid changes requiring tech review in DITAfication PRs.

@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH force-pushed the tuning-guide-ditafication branch from 24043f2 to 7daab09 Compare February 4, 2026 06:37
@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH removed the Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective label Feb 4, 2026
@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @Lennonka just changed some modules types based on their contents. The only changes apart from that are adding an abstract and dropping unsupported block titles. I don't think these require a tech review, hence dropped the tech review label.

Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@Lennonka Lennonka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've run the DITA Vale test. This needs more work.

 common/modules/con_postgresql-tuning.adoc
 4:1   warning  Assign [role="_abstract"]       AsciiDocDITA.ShortDescription 
                to a paragraph to use it as                                   
                <shortdesc> in DITA.                                          
 15:1  warning  Block titles can only be        AsciiDocDITA.BlockTitle       
                assigned to examples, figures,                                
                and tables in DITA.  

common/modules/con_redis-tuning.adoc
 4:1  warning  Assign [role="_abstract"]       AsciiDocDITA.ShortDescription 
               to a paragraph to use it as                                   
               <shortdesc> in DITA.

 common/modules/con_smart-proxy-configuration-tuning.adoc
 4:1  warning  Assign [role="_abstract"]       AsciiDocDITA.ShortDescription 
               to a paragraph to use it as                                   
               <shortdesc> in DITA.

common/modules/con_smartproxy-performance-tests.adoc
 4:1   warning  Assign [role="_abstract"]       AsciiDocDITA.ShortDescription 
                to a paragraph to use it as                                   
                <shortdesc> in DITA.                                          
 17:1  warning  Block titles can only be        AsciiDocDITA.BlockTitle       
                assigned to examples, figures,                                
                and tables in DITA.                                           
 30:1  warning  Block titles can only be        AsciiDocDITA.BlockTitle       
                assigned to examples, figures,                                
                and tables in DITA.                                           
 43:1  warning  Block titles can only be        AsciiDocDITA.BlockTitle       
                assigned to examples, figures,                                
                and tables in DITA.

common/modules/proc_benchmarking-raw-db-performance.adoc
 1:1  warning  The '.Procedure' block title    AsciiDocDITA.TaskContents     
               is missing.                                                   
 4:1  warning  Assign [role="_abstract"]       AsciiDocDITA.ShortDescription 
               to a paragraph to use it as                                   
               <shortdesc> in DITA.

common/modules/proc_decreasing-performance-impact-of-the-pull-based-rex-transport.adoc
 34:1  warning  Content other than a single     AsciiDocDITA.TaskStep 
                list cannot be mapped to DITA                         
                tasks. 

common/modules/proc_dynflow-tuning.adoc
 43:1  warning  Content other than a single     AsciiDocDITA.TaskStep 
                list cannot be mapped to DITA                         
                tasks.

common/modules/proc_manually-tuning-puma-workers-and-threads-count.adoc
 1:1  warning  The '.Procedure' block title    AsciiDocDITA.TaskContents 
               is missing. 

@pr-processor pr-processor bot added the Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author label Feb 4, 2026
@Lennonka Lennonka added Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective and removed style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective labels Feb 4, 2026
Akshay Gadhave added 3 commits February 5, 2026 14:23
- Assign concept module content type to procedure modules that do not have any procedure.
- Assign procedure module content type to content modules with procedures.
- Add missing abstract.
@pr-processor pr-processor bot removed the Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author label Feb 6, 2026
@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @Lennonka
Addressed most of the leftover flags, except for

common/modules/proc_decreasing-performance-impact-of-the-pull-based-rex-transport.adoc
 34:1  warning  Content other than a single     AsciiDocDITA.TaskStep 
                list cannot be mapped to DITA                         
                tasks. 

The lines flagged are the following (flagged as these appear under the procedure header):

{SmartProxyServer} logs are in `/var/log/foreman-proxy/proxy.log`.
{SmartProxyServer} uses Webrick HTTP server (no httpd or Puma involved), so there is no simple way to increase its capacity.

ifndef::orcharhino[]
[NOTE]
====
Depending on the workload, number of hosts, available resources, and applied tuning, you might hit the https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244811[Bug 2244811], which causes {SmartProxy} to consume too much memory and eventually be killed, making the rest of the job fail.
At the moment there is no universally applicable workaround.
====
endif::[]

The line about the logs can be removed IMO.

The Webrick HTTP server can probably moved to the intro section above.

I think the NOTE can be removed too as the bug is closed.

I'll check with Imaanpreet once about this once and then make the changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Needs re-review Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants