docs(site): reshape the remaining Base Registry tutorials - #921
Conversation
Apply the tutorial-shape rules to the six Base Registry tutorials that follow the first two: every screen keeps a command or a line to check, role and route inventories move to the configure and reference pages, generated files are no longer reprinted, and headings name the action. Every transcript was replayed on the current development build. Two claims did not hold and are corrected: a repeated data import prints the checkpoint's cumulative count rather than zero, and a list without orderby is sorted by the assigned identifier, so the paging order is not the creation order. Signed-off-by: Jeremi Joslin <jeremi@joslin.fr>
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e1a7ba92f7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
The spatial quickstart launcher requires uv, so the QGIS prerequisites name it again. The module and review-changes pages say every check repeats the findings, but each page later shows a refused check that prints errors and no findings, so the claim now applies to checks that pass. Signed-off-by: Jeremi Joslin <jeremi@joslin.fr>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b942d21caf
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…ndings summary The four correction profiles each declare a required scope, so they are absent from the no_required_scope group, and two of them are granted no list operation at all. The summary said the other three codes said the same of other grants, which read as though any authenticated caller could select every profile and list every row. Signed-off-by: Jeremi Joslin <jeremi@joslin.fr>
1 participant
Summary
Applies the tutorial-shape rules from #919 to the six Base Registry tutorials after first-breg and derive, and re-verifies every transcript on the current development build.
changeControllines the reader edits, with links to the configure and API reference pages; the 26-finding transcript quotes the first group and the summary line; the direct-write refusal is quoted verbatim; one action per heading.uvprerequisite, trims the bounding box and row boundary explanations, and corrects the claim about rerunning the import: a complete checkpoint sends nothing but the summary repeats the checkpoint's counts rather than reporting zero items.orderbyis sorted by record identifier, andorderbyoncodeis refused because the project declares no sort fields); the troubleshooting rows for missing environment variables now match what Python and Node actually raise.Verification
breg,bregctl, andmintfrom main; the module, review-changes, webhook, candidate, and client pages matched their transcripts apart from the two corrections above. The QGIS launcher banner and import block matched; the QGIS desktop steps were not replayed.0.27.0-dev.npm run check:evidence-anchorsandnpm run checkindocs/sitepass.Follow-ups not in this PR
bregctl devif the acceptance example shippedenvironment: localand adev-clients.yaml.verify.package.package_refused, which appears when verify runs against the unedited runtime-test copy, is not in the candidate troubleshooting table.