Skip to content

Introduce Ansible Module Collection guide #3859

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

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aneta-petrova
Copy link
Member

What changes are you introducing?

Moving the freshly updated docs on using the Ansible Module Collection (#3844) from the Admin guide to a separate guide.

Tweaking the "getting help" sections in the Hammer and API guides so that both these two and the new Ansible guide can follow the same structure.

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

The Ansible Module Collection is a Project management tool that is in many ways equivalent to Hammer and API. The proposed Ansible guide's structure mirrors the structure of the existing Hammer and API guides to create an equivalent to them.

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

N/A

Checklists

  • 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 3.14/Katello 4.16
  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only; orcharhino 7.0 on EL8+EL9; orcharhino 7.1 with Leapp)
  • Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
  • Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
  • Foreman 3.8/Katello 4.10
  • Foreman 3.7/Katello 4.9 (Satellite 6.14)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.7.

@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 May 15, 2025
@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels May 15, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 15, 2025

The PR preview for dea0f96 is available at theforeman-foreman-documentation-preview-pr-3859.surge.sh

The following output files are affected by this PR:

show diff

show diff as HTML

@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova added the Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective label May 15, 2025
@aneta-petrova
Copy link
Member Author

In #3844, I hinted at my intention to move the updated Ansible content to a separate guide. This is an idea that we discussed with @evgeni and @ekohl who both seemed to be in favor of it.

The only actual new content is these files:

  • guides/common/modules/con_introduction-to-project-ansible-module-collection.adoc
  • guides/common/modules/ref_getting-help-with-project-ansible-module-collection.adoc

Both are very generic but still, @evgeni, can you please review them?

@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova marked this pull request as ready for review May 15, 2025 18:30
@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova force-pushed the ansible_collection_guide branch 2 times, most recently from ac06401 to 3633825 Compare May 19, 2025 08:00
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.

two minor comments.

@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova force-pushed the ansible_collection_guide branch from 3633825 to 8b35a0e Compare May 26, 2025 08:12
@aneta-petrova aneta-petrova 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 May 26, 2025
@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb requested a review from evgeni June 26, 2025 11:56
@maximiliankolb
Copy link
Contributor

triage: kindly requested a tech review from Evgeni.

@evgeni evgeni added tech review done No issues from the technical perspective and removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective labels Jun 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective tech review done No issues from the technical perspective
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants