Bug 1294508

Summary:	broken index on the multi-page version of the Methods Available for Automation documentation for cloudforms 4.0
Product:	Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine	Reporter:	Felix Dewaleyne <fdewaley>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	Red Hat CloudForms Documentation <cloudforms-docs>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Red Hat CloudForms Documentation <cloudforms-docs>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	5.4.0	CC:	adahms, fdewaley, jhardy, mfeifer, nachandr, obarenbo
Target Milestone:	GA
Target Release:	cfme-future
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:	doc
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-01 04:12:14 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Felix Dewaleyne 2015-12-28 15:33:12 UTC

Description of problem:
broken index on the multi-page version of the Methods Available for Automation  documentation for cloudforms 4.0

Document URL:  https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-cloudforms/4.0/methods-available-for-automation/methods-available-for-automation

Section Number and Name:  index

Describe the issue: index isn't shown

Suggestions for improvement:  

Additional information: should be similar to the single-page version ( https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-cloudforms/version-4.0/methods-available-for-automation/ ) which seems to be less broken, some content seems to also not be in the index in that version.

Comment 2 Andrew Dahms 2016-11-01 04:12:14 UTC

Hi Felix,

Thank you for raising this bug, and my apologies for the delay in following up on your request.

At current, this is the default appearance of the two different menus in the multi-page and single-page formats, and to my understanding, the tooling team in charge of this does not have any current plans to update this.

I will close this bug, but will continue to discuss this topic with the tooling team as part of our ongoing discussion on requirements, and will let you know should this direction change in the future.

Kind regards,

Andrew