docs: fix misleading shadow linking troubleshooting check (DOC-2231, beta) - #1803
Conversation
…adow cluster The prerequisites already state that only the shadow cluster needs enable_shadow_linking, but the troubleshooting section told users to verify it on both clusters. LLM assistants latch onto this as a debugging gotcha even when irrelevant (DOC-2231).
✅ Deploy Preview for redpanda-docs-preview ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Feediver1
left a comment
Feediver1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR Review (docs-team-standards final pass)
Files reviewed: 1 (k-shadow-linking.adoc, 39-line diff)
Overall assessment: Correct, complete, and well-motivated. No critical issues — one one-word terminology nit, and a coordination note for the main-branch twin.
Jira ticket alignment
DOC-2231: exactly addressed — and the motivation (LLM assistants via the Docs MCP latching onto the spurious check as a debugging gotcha) is a notably good example of docs debt with measurable downstream effects.
Verified
- The claim is right: shadow-cluster-only matches the prerequisites partial, the 25.3 engineering TOI, and the Terraform provider's shipped schema description — three independent sources.
- The fix is complete: a repo-wide sweep finds no other instance of the
enable_shadow_linkingboth-clusters check; the page's two surviving "both clusters" mentions (Enterprise licenses, the link referencing both clusters by name) are both correct. - The bi-directional exception sentence is logically sound rather than an overcorrection — the property is role-scoped, not link-scoped.
Suggestion
- "bi-directional" → "bidirectional":
betanow carries five "bidirectional" instances (from the DOC-2217 shadowing-upgrade content merged yesterday) and this would be the lone hyphenated one.
Coordination
- Merge the main-branch twin #1802 too — it's still open. Both merging is the right pattern: 26.1 readers get the fix immediately, and today's promotion merges identical changes cleanly. Neither should wait on the other.
What works well
- The added sentence turns a deletion into an explanation — readers learn why the source cluster doesn't need the property, and the one case where it does.
- Twin PRs against
mainandbetais exactly right for a fix current-version readers are hitting today.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Feediver1
left a comment
Feediver1
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestions caught a minor nit
|
Applied in d7dca3e: "bi-directional" is now "bidirectional", matching the five instances the DOC-2217 content established on beta. The main twin #1802 got the same fix in 7c37bac. 🤖 Generated with Claude Code |
2 participants
Beta counterpart of #1802: the troubleshooting check for
enable_shadow_linkingnow targets only the shadow cluster, matching the prerequisites. See #1802 for details. Fixes DOC-2231.