docs: switch docs engine

[Torres-ssf]

• Close docs: move from jekyll pages to a better doc engine #457

[github-actions]

Coverage report

St.❔	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🟢	Statements	95%	4564/4804
🟢	Branches	83.55%	818/979
🟢	Functions	92%	886/963
🟢	Lines	94.89%	4384/4620

Test suite run success

760 tests passing in 109 suites.

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 1a0c0f1

[Torres-ssf]

Some details about this PR:

1- Vitepress search feature was designed to be used with Algolia. We can start using it for free, but I believe that at some point in the (not near) future, we will have to start paying fees (more details here). In order to start using Algolia we need to apply here. According to Algolia docs, anyone who can update the project content can apply, and no credit card is required. I haven't applied yet, I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page about it. But in the meantime, the search is working based on a workaround solution.

2 - The documentation build is now part of the project build process. Having said that, I am assuming we do not need to have a separate CI step to build the docs. I did some deploys tests on GitHub pages using a dummy repository, and realized that we only have 2 options during setup: deploys using GitHub Actions or pushing website files inside the docs dir. Based on our current docs, I can assume we're using the second option (I don't have access to the repository settings to confirm this). So I believe we need to update this configuration and use GitHub Actions.

3 - We need to decide if we are going to continue generating the literal documentation of the code. If not, we won't need typedoc anymore. I've run some tests and we can get on with it, but we'll need to decide how/when these documents will be generated. This can be part of the apps/docs build script, that way they will always be available when using the docs locally and we won't need a separate step for that. This will also require some additional custom configuration in Vitepress as the routes to these documents need to be dynamically generated.

cc @FuelLabs/sdk-ts

[Torres-ssf]

Since the new docs build/deploy process is going to change, I am assuming we won't need these Ci steps anymore
1
2

cc @camsjams @Dhaiwat10 @arboleya

[arboleya]

1. Let's go with Algolia—we could also apply for a (free forever) open source license.
2. —
3. According to previous conversations, we can safely sunset typedoc.

[Dhaiwat10]

Since the new docs build/deploy process is going to change, I am assuming we won't need these Ci steps anymore 1 2

cc @camsjams @Dhaiwat10 @arboleya

Yeah, if we are not using typedoc and building our docs like that, I believe we can get rid of these CI steps.

[Dhaiwat10]

Re. your previous comment @Torres-ssf, I will pretty much second what @arboleya said. Let's go with Algolia, and I feel like the general consensus is to move on from typedoc too.

[camsjams]

Is there anyway you can re-commit everything to a new branch or force push with using a single commit for the docs guide files?

The doc files all got moved around but if they aren't DELETED and ADDED in same commit git can't detect a rename.

This makes it harder to see what changed so we'd all have to re-read ALL of the docs to determine if they are correct.

Also we lose all git history on their updates

[camsjams]

Excellent, thanks for your update to the git history @Torres-ssf - it looks 👍 great!

I will review again

[arboleya]

@Torres-ssf The *.md files are showing as added instead renamed; you forgot to delete the [old] docs directory. You'll need to delete it and then do a --amend commit followed by another push --force. Something like this.

[Dhaiwat10]

Amazing work @Torres-ssf! Left some minor non-blocking comments.

[Torres-ssf]

@arboleya @Dhaiwat10 I Have worked on all requested changes and need the approval again 😅