Skip to content
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

ViteDevServer deserves its own page #18526

Open
1 of 4 tasks
aleclarson opened this issue Oct 30, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
1 of 4 tasks

ViteDevServer deserves its own page #18526

aleclarson opened this issue Oct 30, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@aleclarson
Copy link
Member

aleclarson commented Oct 30, 2024

Documentation is

  • Missing
  • Outdated
  • Confusing
  • Not sure?

Explain in Detail

Currently, the ViteDevServer interface is awkwardly explained in a single code block with a large TypeScript interface type and JavaScript comment blocks.

In addition, the methods appear to be under-specified.

For example, nowhere is the originalUrl argument of transformIndexHtml explained. Why does it need to be defined and not equal to "/" before relative <script> dependencies can have their src attribute transformed?

I believe the formatting of the current ViteDevServer documentation is unwelcoming to further clarification.

Your Suggestion for Changes

It would make more sense for ViteDevServer to have its own page, with each property/method described in Markdown with individual code examples.

Reproduction

No response

Steps to reproduce

No response

@aleclarson aleclarson added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Oct 30, 2024
@dbarabashh
Copy link

hey, @aleclarson. i'd be glad if you could add some info on how and where to add the page. this would really help me complete the task if no one’s taken it on yet

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants