Make the docs state things rather than argue them
Docs / docs (push) Successful in 37s
Playwright Tests / test-playwright (1, 2) (push) Failing after 1m35s
Playwright Tests / test-playwright (2, 2) (push) Failing after 17s
pre-commit / pre-commit (push) Failing after 2m8s
Test Backend / test-backend (push) Failing after 2m48s
Compose Smoke Test / test-compose (push) Failing after 13s
Playwright Tests / merge-reports (push) Failing after 2m25s
Docs / docs (push) Successful in 37s
Playwright Tests / test-playwright (1, 2) (push) Failing after 1m35s
Playwright Tests / test-playwright (2, 2) (push) Failing after 17s
pre-commit / pre-commit (push) Failing after 2m8s
Test Backend / test-backend (push) Failing after 2m48s
Compose Smoke Test / test-compose (push) Failing after 13s
Playwright Tests / merge-reports (push) Failing after 2m25s
The site read as a design journal: rationale paragraphs, hedges
("deliberately", "on purpose", "genuinely"), meta-commentary about the docs
themselves, and one em-dash every ten lines carrying an aside.
Roughly twenty rationale blocks are gone or reduced to what a reader needs
in order to use the thing. Em-dashes go from 507 to 135, and what is left is
structural rather than prose: list and definition separators, table cells,
and four inside code blocks that quote what the CLI actually prints.
Also: api.example.com becomes api.fluksio.com (the emails stay, since
bootstrap.py really defaults to admin@example.com and RFC 2606 reserves it);
the mqtt table gains the two settings it had drifted behind on and inject's
wording matches the engine; llms.txt lists the two connector pages that were
in the nav but not in it; and the two device/device_policy notes now agree.
Builds clean under `zensical build --strict`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015YrQnKV3bnQd4K342y8tKj
This commit is contained in:
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ def process(reading, unit="C"):
|
||||
return {"shown": reading if unit == "C" else reading * 1.8 + 32}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Because both arrive by name, a setting cannot share a name with a port — the
|
||||
Because both arrive by name, a setting cannot share a name with a port. The
|
||||
node reports it rather than picking one.
|
||||
|
||||
Settings are part of the flow document, so changing one is an edit that gets
|
||||
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ consumer visibly downstream of it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Flow inputs: what arrives from outside
|
||||
|
||||
Some messages are not computed by any node in the flow — a dashboard control
|
||||
Some messages are not computed by any node in the flow, such as a dashboard control
|
||||
writes them, the API publishes them, a batch run passes them in. Declare those
|
||||
as the flow's **inputs**, with the value they start from:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ and the canvas says so. With it, the flow starts from 21.0 and whatever writes
|
||||
the message afterwards takes over.
|
||||
|
||||
The canvas draws each one as a labelled endpoint feeding the nodes that read
|
||||
it, the same way it draws a dashboard tile or another flow — so a value never
|
||||
it, the same way it draws a dashboard tile or another flow, so a value never
|
||||
appears from nowhere. They are edited in the flow's own panel.
|
||||
|
||||
A batch flow's inputs are also its run parameters, and its **outputs** name what
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user