Skip to content

chore: Doc update for em default value and warning if dpf is not used.#3656

Open
abvarshney-nv wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA:mainfrom
abvarshney-nv:doc_update
Open

chore: Doc update for em default value and warning if dpf is not used.#3656
abvarshney-nv wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA:mainfrom
abvarshney-nv:doc_update

Conversation

@abvarshney-nv

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Doc change for the commits:

Related issues

Type of Change

  • Add - New feature or capability
  • Change - Changes in existing functionality
  • Fix - Bug fixes
  • Remove - Removed features or deprecated functionality
  • Internal - Internal changes (refactoring, tests, docs, etc.)

Breaking Changes

  • This PR contains breaking changes

Testing

  • Unit tests added/updated
  • Integration tests added/updated
  • Manual testing performed
  • No testing required (docs, internal refactor, etc.)

Additional Notes

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Clarified NICo DPF default behavior when --dpf-enabled is omitted.
    • Documented that omitted dpf_enabled values are stored and reinserted as true.
    • Improved formatting of introductory notes for readability.

Walkthrough

The NICo DPF manual now presents its expectations as separate bullets and documents true as the default when DPF settings are omitted during expected-machine creation or replacement.

Changes

NICo DPF documentation

Layer / File(s) Summary
Documented DPF defaults
docs/manuals/dpf.md
Reformats the introductory DPF note and updates expected-machine add and replace-all --filename documentation to state that omitted DPF settings default to true.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title is concise and accurately reflects the documentation update and DPF default/warning changes.
Description check ✅ Passed The description is clearly related to the documentation-only changes and matches the stated scope.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔍 Container Scan Summary

No Grype artifacts were found to aggregate.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/manuals/dpf.md`:
- Around line 34-38: Update the second note in the DPF documentation to scope
the “default provisioning strategy” claim to configurations where [dpf].enabled
is true, while preserving the existing warning behavior for hosts not using DPF.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

  • Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
  • Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 8cadccd9-60e3-4d6d-9c33-2c1af99fe9fc

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4d15496 and d01a471.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • docs/manuals/dpf.md

Comment thread docs/manuals/dpf.md
Comment on lines +34 to +38
> **Note**:
>
> 1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
> 2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
>

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win

Scope the default claim to [dpf].enabled.

When the site-level DPF gate is off, this reads as if DPF is always the default provisioning strategy. Qualify it so the default only applies when [dpf].enabled = true.

Suggested wording
- 2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
+ 2. When `[dpf].enabled = true`, DPF is the default per-host provisioning strategy. A warning is displayed for hosts that are not configured to use DPF.
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
> **Note**:
>
> 1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
> 2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
>
> **Note**:
>
> 1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
> 2. When `[dpf].enabled = true`, DPF is the default per-host provisioning strategy. A warning is displayed for hosts that are not configured to use DPF.
>
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@docs/manuals/dpf.md` around lines 34 - 38, Update the second note in the DPF
documentation to scope the “default provisioning strategy” claim to
configurations where [dpf].enabled is true, while preserving the existing
warning behavior for hosts not using DPF.

@polarweasel polarweasel left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a couple little changes to your couple little changes :)

Comment thread docs/manuals/dpf.md
Comment on lines +34 to +38
> **Note**:
>
> 1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
> 2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
>

@polarweasel polarweasel Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's use Fern's component here. Check the Coderabbit commentary too, in case it's relevant...

Suggested change
> **Note**:
>
> 1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
> 2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
>
<Note title="Notes">
1. NICo expects DPF to be installed and configured on the same Kubernetes cluster where NICo (the controller) runs.
2. DPF is the default provisioning strategy. If any host is not using it, a warning will be displayed.
</Note>

Comment thread docs/manuals/dpf.md
Comment on lines 743 to +746
> **Important**: this is **not a merge**. Any expected-machine row that is
> not present in the file is **deleted**. Each entry is then re-created via
> the same path as `add`, so any entry whose `dpf_enabled` is omitted is
> re-inserted with `dpf_enabled = false`.
> re-inserted with `dpf_enabled = true`.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no doubt there are more of these, but gotta start somewhere :)

Suggested change
> **Important**: this is **not a merge**. Any expected-machine row that is
> not present in the file is **deleted**. Each entry is then re-created via
> the same path as `add`, so any entry whose `dpf_enabled` is omitted is
> re-inserted with `dpf_enabled = false`.
> re-inserted with `dpf_enabled = true`.
<Warning>
This is not a merge. Any expected-machine row that is not present in the file is **deleted**. Each entry is then re-created using the same path as `add`, so any entry whose `dpf_enabled` is omitted is re-inserted with `def_enabled = true`.
</Warning>

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants