Improve CI/CD troubleshooting content
What does this MR do?
While researching the related issue, we noticed a few issues with troubleshooting content in CI/CD:
- Content is duplicated across a few troubleshooting sections sometimes (especially about duplicate/missing jobs in pipelines).
- Some content is in the wrong troubleshooting section/page.
So this MR tries to move as much troubleshooting content as possible out to the feature pages.
Additionally, specifically for the https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/troubleshooting.html page:
- It seems like the most common search term that people are using (according to Google site performance stats) are all using "debug" vocabulary.
gitlab debug pipeline
,gitlab ci debug
,gitlab ci debug pipeline
, and similar variations. The wordtroubleshooting
does not appear in the top 30 search terms for people visiting this page. - A lot of the content on the page does relate to generic debugging advice, like using the pipeline editor, checking your variables, etc.
So I wonder if we should make this page dedicated to helping people debug their pipelines, with troubleshooting at the end for generic errors that apply to CI/CD in general and not a specific topic? Debugging is a little different than troubleshooting error messages, because often your pipeline is running fine with no errors, it's just not behaving the way you want or expect. Thus (I suspect) the amount of searches for debugging
rather than troubleshooting
.
Related issues
- Resolves #427711 (closed)
- Related to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/technical-writing/-/issues/936
Author's checklist
-
Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course. -
Follow the: -
If you're adding or changing the main heading of the page (H1), ensure that the product tier badge is added. -
If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on: - The documentation page's metadata.
- The associated Technical Writer.
If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:
~"frontend"
~"backend"
~"type::bug"
~"database"
These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.
Reviewer's checklist
Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.
If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.
-
If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert. - Technical writer review items:
-
Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date. -
Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR. -
Ensure a release milestone is set. - If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
-
The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior
, say something likeDefault behavior when you close an issue
. -
The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK
, say something likeConfigure GDK
. -
Any task steps should be written as a numbered list. - If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
-
-
-
Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.