docs: Create a dynamic provider features matrix #201
Conversation
captncraig
commented
Sep 14, 2017
•
captncraig
commented
build/generate/featureMatrix.go
Outdated
| {"Official Support", "This means the provider is actively used at stack exchange, and we offer a stronger guarantee it will work"}, | ||
| {"Registrar", "The provider has registrar capabilities to set nameservers for zones"}, | ||
| {"DNS Provider", "Can manage and serve DNS zones"}, | ||
| {"ALIAS", "Provider supports some kind of ALIAS,ANAME or flattened CNAME record type"}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add a space after the comma
build/generate/featureMatrix.go
Outdated
| matrix := &FeatureMatrix{ | ||
| Providers: map[string]FeatureMap{}, | ||
| Features: []FeatureDef{ | ||
| {"Official Support", "This means the provider is actively used at stack exchange, and we offer a stronger guarantee it will work"}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actively used at Stack Exchange, bugs are more likely to be fixed, and failing integration tests will block a release. See docs for details.
| @@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ type nameDotCom struct { | |||
| APIKey string `json:"apikey"` | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| var docNotes = providers.DocumentationNotes{ | |||
| providers.DocDualHost: providers.Cannot("Apex NS records not editable"), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apex NS records are editable, but they have to match the list of nameservers at the registry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's interesting @pmoroney. It creates a bit of a chicken and egg problem. In dnscontrol we update the dns provider first, and then the registrar. It sounds like that wouldn't work with NDC unless we invert that order?
We made that choice specifically so we never point at an uninitialized dns server.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The dns provider ignores the Apex NS records and just lets the registrar provider handle it, so it doesn't really matter which order it works in. I do it for pat.irish using dnscontrol. I just removed it and re-added it and didn't have any problems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, that makes sense. Thats a slightly different paradigm than other providers, but it should work fine. I'll run a quick test and update the flag.
captncraig
changed the title
* adding simple provider feature matrix generator * filling out matrix * clean output * dead code * explanatory text * explanatory text * typo * move stuff around * clean * editing
