Docs for daemons

[labkode]

Fixes #296

[labkode]

Changes applied

[labkode]

@voetberg addressed your suggestions.

[labkode]

@voetberg @rdimaio now the build fails for no apparent reason nor directly related to my changes, I've re-started but still fails, can you take a look?

[rdimaio]

ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'rich'

seems to be related to this PR that just got merged rucio/rucio#7012

[rdimaio]

we need to add rich here: https://github.com/rucio/documentation/blob/main/tools/requirements.txt - i'm making a PR now

[voetberg]

we need to add rich here: https://github.com/rucio/documentation/blob/main/tools/requirements.txt - i'm making a PR now

You're way ahead of me, I was just putting one in myself lol

[rdimaio]

PR to add dependency: #407
but it's failing with the same error.

This is happening right after it pulls the cached test image:

Status: Downloaded newer image for ghcr.io/rucio/rucio/rucio-autotest:alma9-python3.9
Generating documentation files...
Generating the Rest Api Docs...
Generating the Executable Help Docs...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/run_in_docker/rucio/bin/rucio", line 35, in <module>
    from rich.console import Console
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'rich'

which was last published 12 hours ago: https://github.com/rucio/rucio/pkgs/container/rucio%2Frucio-autotest

I just started a new cache build run: https://github.com/rucio/rucio/actions/runs/12142963668, should take 20 mins. After it's built, I'd say:

• let's try rerunning the build step in this PR (346) just to see if it passes without needing to add rich as dep in rucio/documentation as well
• if it doesn't pass, let's try rerunning the build step in Dependencies: Add rich; fix #406 #407

[labkode]

@rdimaio build failed, trying adding rich now.

[labkode]

@rdimaio @voetberg still fails. Can some of you revert the PR that introduced the breaking change so other PRs can go through?

[voetberg]

@rdimaio @voetberg still fails. Can some of you revert the PR that introduced the breaking change so other PRs can go through?

The problem isn't from docs, it's from the main repo. This commit - rucio/rucio@d58adca
It added a dependency not present in the image used for generated the client api docs

[rdimaio]

@rdimaio @voetberg still fails. Can some of you revert the PR that introduced the breaking change so other PRs can go through?

The problem isn't from docs, it's from the main repo. This commit - rucio/rucio@d58adca It added a dependency not present in the image used for generated the client api docs

the error is different now that rich has been added: https://github.com/rucio/documentation/actions/runs/12142845622/job/33913473175?pr=407

[rdimaio]

@labkode the issue will be solved by this PR #409 - in the meantime, you can remove the rich dependency change from this PR as it is not needed anymore

[labkode]

@rdimaio all good now thanks!

removed rich

[labkode]

@rdimaio I thought it was green as the "Merge" button appeared but the build is still failing.

[rdimaio]

@rdimaio I thought it was green as the "Merge" button appeared but the build is still failing.

CI looks good here https://github.com/rucio/documentation/actions/runs/12176030045

[voetberg]

@rdimaio I thought it was green as the "Merge" button appeared but the build is still failing.

The CI was running off your branch and not the main repo, so the failed doc building was still present. The fixes in main solve the build problem when it merges, but not in the PR itself.

[labkode]

@voetberg what else is missing for these changes appear in the main documentation portal?
https://github.com/rucio/documentation/

[voetberg]

@labkode They're present? https://rucio.cern.ch/documentation/started/daemons

If you mean the sidebar, it looks like your pr was missing adding them to website/sidebars.json (we should have caught that in review.) We can open another PR to fix that.

[rdimaio]

just realized that these daemons are under the started directory - was that on purpose?

edit: my bad, that's the "Getting started" docs directory, so I think it fits (could argue it might go into the Operator docs instead but I think it's fine in the current section)