quarkus
quarkus copied to clipboard
quarkusio
Show the list of endpoints on the default index page
Describe the bug
Currently it's not obvious how to find the list of available endpoints when opening Quarkus:
This is very important as we previously had the codestart list with their link and now there is nothing to find it.
Expected behavior
Display the list of endpoint like on the 404 page
Actual behavior
No response
How to Reproduce?
Create any Quarkus app with a codestart from code.quarkus.io
Output of uname -a or ver
No response
Output of java -version
No response
Quarkus version or git rev
3.14.0
Build tool (ie. output of mvnw --version or gradlew --version)
No response
Additional information
No response
![quarkus-bot[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/90234?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
couldn't the page include the readme sections that each codestart contribute to readme ?
they can have more info than just URLs to go visit.
Also I think we should sort the list of endpoint by number of / in order to have the direct pages first..
Could we please not marked as [important] something that's not even a bug?
I agree we can improve but it's really not that important compared to a lot of other things we have in this tracker and I don't think it's worth driving the attention of everyone having a look at issues.
Thanks.
I think it's a very severe bug as it means all users starting with Quarkus won't have the right link in their starter app. I wouldn't put [important] if it wasn't..
I also added important because it look like a minor issue, but it really isn't
It's a bug. Code starts in past could add info to guide users to what to navigate to and what to do.
Relevant for the quick presets added to code.quarkus which now don't show/help the user what to do.
The title of an issue should not indicate its priority or importance. Doing so would break tools' building release notes or script reporting activity (typically, I would do the same edit because it messes up my report). We have "priority" labels (blocker and urgent). We could potentially add "important."
However, I'm not totally sure about the "good first issue".
BTW, I totally agree it's a bug / regression and we should fix it, and backport it to the LTS.
The title of an issue should not indicate its priority or importance. Doing so would break tools' building release notes or script reporting activity (typically, I would do the same edit because it messes up my report). We have "priority" labels (blocker and urgent). We could potentially add "important."
However, I'm not totally sure about the "good first issue".
I should have asked the proper way to mark it as important you are right..
The fix shouldn't be too hard as we already have the 404 page no?
It should not be too hard if you are @phillip-kruger .... it can be a bit overwhelming if that's your first contribution.
lets add link to the readme on local file system from the index page - then I think we are covered well for LTS to enable codestarts to provide context/info to users.