Skip to content

Split deployment gates setup into JIT and preconfigured pages#37364

Open
GabrielAnca wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
gabriel.anca/split-deployment-gates-setup-pages
Open

Split deployment gates setup into JIT and preconfigured pages#37364
GabrielAnca wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
gabriel.anca/split-deployment-gates-setup-pages

Conversation

@GabrielAnca

@GabrielAnca GabrielAnca commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do? What is the motivation?

Splits Deployment Gates setup into two dedicated pages — JIT and preconfigured — instead of mixing both modes on a single page. Each setup page describes only the workflow for its mode (creation steps, integration tabs, dry-run guidance), and the existing /deployment_gates/setup/ URL becomes a short landing page that helps readers choose between the two modes.

The menu adds two children under Setup (JIT and Preconfigured); the existing setup URL is preserved.

This is an alternative to #37327, which keeps both modes on the same page with JIT-first ordering.

Merge instructions

Merge readiness:

  • Ready for merge

Additional notes

TODO before merge — update version numbers once the supporting PRs land:

Once those merge, replace the placeholder version references in content/en/deployment_gates/setup/jit.md (CLI release-notes link, datadog/ci:latest image tag in the Argo example, deployment-gate-github-action@v1 major-version pin) with concrete versions.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Architecture Everything related to the Doc backend label Jun 9, 2026
@datadog-prod-us1-5

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ Possible site support note detected

The following files have a site-region shortcode at the top of the page that mentions a feature being "not available" or "not supported":

  • content/en/deployment_gates/setup/_index.md
  • content/en/deployment_gates/setup/jit.md

Are you trying to document site support for a product? If so, the site-region shortcode is not the recommended approach. See the Documenting site support guide for the preferred method.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@GabrielAnca GabrielAnca marked this pull request as ready for review June 9, 2026 11:38
@GabrielAnca GabrielAnca requested a review from a team as a code owner June 9, 2026 11:38
@rtrieu

rtrieu commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/review

@rtrieu rtrieu added the editorial review Waiting on a more in-depth review label Jun 9, 2026
@rtrieu

rtrieu commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Created a DOCS card for an editorial review.

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤖 Automated review by Claude. AI-generated; verify before acting.

Nice restructure — the JIT vs preconfigured split is much clearer than a single page trying to cover both. A few specific notes inline: one typo in an example UUID, one style nit, and one minor consistency issue with an unpinned image tag.

Reviewed 110b0359fde269068efc09658f2fa241f326f19fworkflow run

Comment thread content/en/deployment_gates/setup/_index.md Outdated
Comment thread content/en/deployment_gates/setup/jit.md Outdated
restartPolicy: Never
containers:
- name: datadog-check
image: datadog/ci:latest

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggestion: The page tells readers to use a datadog-ci version that supports --config (line 202), but this example pins to datadog/ci:latest, which makes it ambiguous which version a reader actually runs. Pin to a specific tag known to support --config so the example stays consistent with the version guidance above.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a todo for this in the PR description. I'll update this as soon as the corresponding datadog-ci version has been released

| **Where rules live** | Inline in your deployment config or CI step | Persisted in Datadog (UI, API, or Terraform) |
| **Setup in Datadog** | None | Create a gate and rules ahead of time |
| **Best for** | Rules-as-code, per-deployment flexibility, teams that own their own gate config | Shared rules across services, central management, non-CI editing |
| **How to evaluate** | Send rules in the evaluation request | Reference the gate by service and environment |

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.

Do we want to mention the identifier here as well?

"configuration": {
"dry_run": false,
"rules": [
{ "type": "...", "name": "...", "options": { ... } }

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.

Shall we make this a full example?

{{< /tabs >}}

## Evaluate Deployment Gates
## Evaluate a gate from your pipeline

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.

Not from this PR, but we can tackle it now: I'd add identifier: default to the examples here. A lot of customers add identifier to their gates because they don't know what it is, and then cannot evaluate the gate because they miss it when copy-pasting the example

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Architecture Everything related to the Doc backend editorial review Waiting on a more in-depth review

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants