Skip to content

docs: updated docs heading structure #5410

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 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nikkimk
Copy link
Contributor

@nikkimk nikkimk commented Apr 29, 2025

Description

  • Updating contributor docs to include "States" section heading.
  • Updating readme template to include recommended heading structure.

Related issue(s)

  • SWC-91

Motivation and context

Documentation should provide more information and examples that demonstrate how to use the components accessibly.

How has this been tested?

Review the recommended documentation structure

  • Create a new component locally via yarn new-package. Does the new component's readme match the recommended heading structure?

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Chore (minor updates related to the tooling or maintenance of the repository, does not impact compiled assets)

Checklist

  • I have signed the Adobe Open Source CLA.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • If my change required a change to the documentation, I have updated the documentation in this pull request.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • I have reviewed at the Accessibility Practices for this feature, see: Aria Practices

Best practices

This repository uses conventional commit syntax for each commit message; note that the GitHub UI does not use this by default so be cautious when accepting suggested changes. Avoid the "Update branch" button on the pull request and opt instead for rebasing your branch against main.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Apr 29, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 4febb9c

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@@ -422,6 +422,14 @@ Information and examples about options
of the component.
-->

### States
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This section was needed as we started documenting components with states like disabled and pending, so it has been added for consistency.

import { {{className name}} } from '@spectrum-web-components/{{ name }}';
```

## Example
## Anatomy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated the new component readme template to match the recommended heading structure.

Copy link

Branch preview

Review the following VRT differences

When a visual regression test fails (or has previously failed while working on this branch), its results can be found in the following URLs:

If the changes are expected, update the current_golden_images_cache hash in the circleci config to accept the new images. Instructions are included in that file.
If the changes are unexpected, you can investigate the cause of the differences and update the code accordingly.

Copy link

Tachometer results

Currently, no packages are changed by this PR...

@nikkimk nikkimk marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2025 14:04
@nikkimk nikkimk requested a review from a team as a code owner April 29, 2025 14:04
Copy link
Collaborator

@castastrophe castastrophe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks excellent! Thanks so much for tackling this.

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.

2 participants