Skip to content

[REF] queue_job: documentation cleanup #886

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
OCA-git-bot merged 1 commit into from
Feb 3, 2026
Merged

[REF] queue_job: documentation cleanup #886

OCA-git-bot merged 1 commit into from
Feb 3, 2026
+28 −117

Conversation

@RLeeOSI
Copy link
Contributor

@RLeeOSI RLeeOSI commented Jan 26, 2026

Cleanup of documentation in python file, is already present in readme file. Also adds clarity on env vars and conf file options

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

OCA-git-bot commented Jan 26, 2026

Hi @guewen, @sbidoul,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

@RLeeOSI RLeeOSI mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2026
Closed
@RLeeOSI
Copy link
Contributor Author

RLeeOSI commented Jan 26, 2026

@sbidoul First part of the split PR

@RLeeOSI RLeeOSI force-pushed the 18.0-ref-queue-docs branch from 91189f0 to cbfd948 Compare January 26, 2026 17:05
amh-mw
amh-mw approved these changes Jan 26, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@amh-mw amh-mw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Confirmed that deleted comments appear in CONFIGURE.md

@RLeeOSI RLeeOSI mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2026
Open
@sbidoul
Copy link
Member

sbidoul commented Feb 2, 2026

Confirmed that deleted comments appear in CONFIGURE.md

@guewen I think there used to be a sphinx docs generator that was picking up those comments. I suppose we can consider this is lost in time? Or is it something that's worth reviving?

@guewen
Copy link
Member

guewen commented Feb 3, 2026

I suppose we can consider this is lost in time?

Yeah I would say so, better put time in the readme.

Thanks for the cleaning @RLeeOSI

@sbidoul
Copy link
Member

sbidoul commented Feb 3, 2026

/ocabot merge patch

Thanks!

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

OCA-git-bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 18.0-ocabot-merge-pr-886-by-sbidoul-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 9a24a3e into OCA:18.0 Feb 3, 2026
7 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

OCA-git-bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Congratulations, your PR was merged at b4ec9b2. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@guewen guewen guewen approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@amh-mw amh-mw amh-mw approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved merged 🎉 Needs FW Port

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@RLeeOSI @OCA-git-bot @sbidoul @guewen @amh-mw