Show descriptions for `:alpha` items in GraphQL docs

Suggested Reviewers (beta)

The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.

You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign /assign_reviewer @user1.

Suggested Reviewers
`@rspeicher`, `@jivanvl`, `@psimyn`, `@mayra-cabrera`, `@nick.thomas`

If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923.

Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".

added backend documentation labels

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

doc/api/graphql/reference/index.md

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	Drew Blessing (`@dblessing`) (UTC-5, 17 hours behind `@.luke`)	Vasilii Iakliushin (`@vyaklushin`) (UTC+2, 10 hours behind `@.luke`)
maintenanceworkflow / maintenancepipelines for CI, Danger	Gregory Havenga (`@ghavenga`) (UTC+2, 10 hours behind `@.luke`)	Jen-Shin Lin (`@godfat-gitlab`) (UTC+0, 12 hours behind `@.luke`)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

marked the checklist item I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR. as completed

assigned to @.luke

added GraphQL groupintegrations [DEPRECATED] labels

changed milestone to %15.3

@.luke - please add typebug typefeature, typemaintenance or a subtype label to this merge request.

typebug: Defects in shipped code and fixes for those defects. This includes all the bug types (availability, performance, security vulnerability, mobile, etc.)
typefeature: Effort to deliver new features, feature changes & improvements. This includes all changes as part of new product requirements like application limits.
typemaintenance: Up-keeping efforts & catch-up corrective improvements that are not Features nor Bugs. This includes restructuring for long-term maintainability, stability, reducing technical debt, improving the contributor experience, or upgrading dependencies.

See the handbook for more guidance on classifying.

This message was created with automation and Engineering Productivity is looking for feedback in this issue: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/engineering-productivity/team/-/issues/43

added typemaintenance label

resolved all threads

added 1 commit

a50047db - GraphQL docs: Show descriptions for `:alpha` items

Compare with previous version

Hi, @eread! This change came out of some work on "alpha" fields in GraphQL, and how it seemed odd that the original descriptions of schema items marked as "alpha" didn't appear in our generated GraphQL docs.

As mentioned in the description, this would be because "alpha" fields leverage our deprecations, and we must have decided to not display the original descriptions of deprecated things in the docs. I think this makes sense.

I think "alpha" is a different case where a warning should be displayed, but the description of what it is should also be displayed.

What do you think?

added workflowin review label

requested review from @eread

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

review-qa-blocking: test report for cfdab89e

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                     suites summary                                      |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                                    | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create                             | 24     | 0      | 1       | 19    | 25    | ❗     |
| Protect                            | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Manage                             | 38     | 0      | 2       | 34    | 40    | ❗     |
| Plan                               | 47     | 0      | 1       | 45    | 48    | ❗     |
| Verify                             | 14     | 0      | 1       | 12    | 15    | ❗     |
| Secure                             | 2      | 0      | 0       | 2     | 2     | ❗     |
| Version sanity check               | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Configure                          | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Feature flag handler sanity checks | 9      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 9     | ✅     |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total                              | 136    | 0      | 7       | 114   | 143   | ❗     |
+------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+