Skip to content

DOCS: every provider doc includes feature flags automatically#4173

Open
chicks-net wants to merge 2 commits into
DNSControl:mainfrom
chicks-net:chicks/2026-03-17-provider-features-in-every-doc-fixes-3584
Open

DOCS: every provider doc includes feature flags automatically#4173
chicks-net wants to merge 2 commits into
DNSControl:mainfrom
chicks-net:chicks/2026-03-17-provider-features-in-every-doc-fixes-3584

Conversation

@chicks-net
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@chicks-net chicks-net commented Mar 17, 2026

Fixes #3584

Done

  • 🏛️ every provider doc includes feature flags automatically
  • exoscale is now X for concurrency-verified

Meta

  • Provider doc files that ended without a newline all have a newline. I manually updated all of those so the new heading would have a blank line above it.

(Automated in .just/gh-process.just.)

@chicks-net chicks-net changed the title 🏛️ every provider doc includes feature flags automatically DOCS: every provider doc includes feature flags automatically Mar 17, 2026
@chicks-net chicks-net marked this pull request as draft May 10, 2026 21:23
@chicks-net
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

This will need to get rebased, but I switched it to Draft since I want to wait to rebase until #3983 is merged.

@chicks-net chicks-net force-pushed the chicks/2026-03-17-provider-features-in-every-doc-fixes-3584 branch from 015004d to 382f21e Compare May 16, 2026 18:13
@chicks-net chicks-net marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2026 18:16
Signed-off-by: Christopher Hicks <chicks.net@gmail.com>
@chicks-net
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Rebased after #3983 landed. This is ready for review again. (My timing for when I originally landed this was really bad. 😢 )

@TomOnTime @cafferata I'm looking forward to your feedback. For instance, can you think of something better than "Feature Flags" for the heading?

In my humble opinion this really helps providers without much documentation like AutoDNS look better. On my screen this page now requires a bit of scrolling where the existing version fits without scrolling.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@TomOnTime TomOnTime left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code all looks good. I'll let @cafferata comment on the format/style.

As far as "Feature Flags"... how about calling it "Feature Support"?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@cafferata cafferata left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The current implementation looks good and will work well. The feature flags section is a valuable addition to each provider page. I have a few smaller suggestions that could improve the experience.

## Feature Flags

<!-- provider-features-start -->
- Provider Type
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"Provider Type" could link to the provider matrix so users can compare across providers. Same for the other category headings.


<!-- provider-features-start -->
- Provider Type
- Official Support: ❌
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could link to the official support section so users understand what "Official Support" means.

- [Concurrency Verified](../advanced-features/concurrency-verified.md): ✅
- [dual host](../advanced-features/dual-host.md): ❌
- create-domains: ❌
- get-zones: ✅
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could link to the get-zones command docs. Same applies to create-domains.

Done. 2 corrections.
```

## Feature Flags
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How would a user know what ❔ means? There is no legend included. The list is also quite long (21 features across 6 categories), and for most providers the majority is ❔.

A more compact approach: only show ✅ and ❌ items, grouped under "Supported" and "Not supported". That reduces the list to 5-10 items for most providers and removes visual noise. Users who want the full picture can still check the provider matrix.

@TomOnTime TomOnTime self-requested a review May 18, 2026 12:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Include provider features in each provider's documentation page

3 participants