Bug 1294508 - broken index on the multi-page version of the Methods Available for Automation documentation for cloudforms 4.0
Summary: broken index on the multi-page version of the Methods Available for Automatio...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Documentation
Version: 5.4.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: GA
: cfme-future
Assignee: Red Hat CloudForms Documentation
QA Contact: Red Hat CloudForms Documentation
URL:
Whiteboard: doc
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-12-28 15:33 UTC by Felix Dewaleyne
Modified: 2016-11-01 04:12 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-01 04:12:14 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.