add the changelog to the collection docsite

[briantist]

SUMMARY

Since the collection's changelog is already RST, I had the idea of adding it to the docsite, so folks could more easily see the collection's changelog specifically.

Rendered:

• https://ansible-collections.github.io/community.hashi_vault/pr/299/collections/community/hashi_vault/index.html

---

I want to get feedback from the community and DaWGs about:

• whether this is a good idea
• if the way I'm implementing it makes sense
• if we maybe want to provide a better/easier path for this via changes to the docs generation process
• if I've missed something entirely and the changelog is actually published on the docsite (though I would argue if so, it's been hard to find, and doing it this way will make it visible in local doc generation too)

ISSUE TYPE

• Docs Pull Request

[github-actions]

Docs Build 📝

Thank you for contribution!✨

This PR has been merged and the docs are now incorporated into main:
https://ansible-collections.github.io/community.hashi_vault/branch/main

[mariolenz]

I think a changelog is an important part of the documentation and adding it to the docsite would make it more accessible. It's hard to find the changes to a collection you're interested in in the Ansible changelog. Since there is already the module (and some other) documentation on the docsite, why make people look in the GitHub repository for the changelog?

That said, I think it's a good idea. However, I don't know that much about docsite and how it works exactly. So there might be some downsides I am unable to see.

[russoz]

I agree, it is a very good idea, and I also know very little about the docsite stuff so I cannot vouch for the implementation.

[felixfontein]

Looks good to me. It would probably be more cool if an existing changelog (in changelog.yaml format) is automatically included in the docsite by antsibull-docs. I might work on that soon...

[briantist]

Thanks @felixfontein , that's the kind of first class support I was thinking could be nice, though probably opt-in since IIRC collections do have some options for handling changelogs differently, but yeah that'd be great!

I will probably do it this way in the meantime, and switch if/when an integrated method is available.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #299 (f3caf3e) into main (1f0ffdc) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head f3caf3e differs from pull request most recent head 6231cc4. Consider uploading reports for the commit 6231cc4 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #299   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.52%   98.52%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines        3602     3602           
  Branches      321      321           
=======================================
  Hits         3549     3549           
  Misses         44       44           
  Partials        9        9           

Flag	Coverage Δ
env_docker-default	98.52% <ø> (ø)
integration	80.93% <ø> (ø)
sanity	38.77% <ø> (ø)
target_ansible-doc	100.00% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_approle	89.47% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_aws_iam	50.00% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_azure	53.84% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_cert	86.36% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_jwt	91.30% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_ldap	89.47% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_none	100.00% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_token	73.07% <ø> (ø)
target_auth_userpass	85.71% <ø> (ø)
target_connection_options	74.76% <ø> (ø)
target_controller	82.51% <ø> (ø)
target_filter_vault_login_token	77.77% <ø> (ø)
target_import	38.77% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_hashi_vault	81.33% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_vault_ansible_settings	55.87% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_vault_kv1_get	91.30% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_vault_kv2_get	91.66% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_vault_login	?
target_lookup_vault_read	?
target_lookup_vault_token_create	78.18% <ø> (ø)
target_lookup_vault_write	57.57% <ø> (ø)
target_module_utils	97.02% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_kv1_get	87.50% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_kv2_get	87.23% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_login	83.72% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_pki_generate_certificate	78.72% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_read	85.71% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_token_create	90.00% <ø> (ø)
target_module_vault_write	56.46% <ø> (ø)
target_modules	77.43% <ø> (ø)
units	95.78% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[felixfontein]

I created an issue in antsibull-docs for discussing this: ansible-community/antsibull-docs#31