OADP-5888 Add Line After Include Statements

[Pkylas007]

Version(s):

• OCP 4.20, 4.19

Issue:

• OADP-6203

Link to docs preview:

• Advanced OADP features and functionalities
• OADP features and plugins
• OADP 1.4 release notes

QE review:

• [ ] QE has approved this change.

Note - As discussed with Kathryn, skipping the QE review because this PR focuses on adding a space after the include statements in modules and there are no technical changes.

Additional information:

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Mon Oct 27 09:32:51 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/ https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/oadp-advanced-topics.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/oadp-features-plugins.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/release-notes/oadp-1-4-release-notes.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa-hcp/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/oadp-features-plugins.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa-hcp/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/release-notes/oadp-1-4-release-notes.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/oadp-features-plugins.html https://93812--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-rosa/latest/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/release-notes/oadp-1-4-release-notes.html

[Pkylas007]

/label peer-review-needed

[openshift-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale. Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

[bergerhoffer]

The branch/enterprise-4.21 label has been added to this PR.

This is because your PR targets the main branch and is labeled for enterprise-4.20. And any PR going into main must also target the latest version branch (enterprise-4.21).

If the update in your PR does NOT apply to version 4.21 onward, please re-target this PR to go directly into the appropriate version branch or branches (enterprise-4.x) instead of main.

[Pkylas007]

The branch/enterprise-4.21 label has been added to this PR.

This is because your PR targets the main branch and is labeled for enterprise-4.20. And any PR going into main must also target the latest version branch (enterprise-4.21).

If the update in your PR does NOT apply to version 4.21 onward, please re-target this PR to go directly into the appropriate version branch or branches (enterprise-4.x) instead of main.

Thank you @anahas-redhat !

[Pkylas007]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[Pkylas007]

/label merge-review-needed

[Pkylas007]

One comment to address.

Hi @JoeAldinger ,

Thank you for your comment. I'll inform the OADP team but I'm not allowed to make any content change in OADP documentation. It's beyond the scope of this PR. Could you merge this PR please?

[JoeAldinger]

One comment to address.

Hi @JoeAldinger ,

Thank you for your comment. I'll inform the OADP team but I'm not allowed to make any content change in OADP documentation. It's beyond the scope of this PR. Could you merge this PR please?

Hi this actually belongs to @anarnold97 and the aligned team. The PR has a few deal breakers from OCP's perspective including 3 commits that need squashed, a QE ack for the procedure and concept module, and I don't think either new module follows our guidelines for a procedure (there aren't any steps) and concept module (i.e. a NOTE callout isn't a concept module). Get with Andy and he can help you.

[anarnold97]

@shdeshpa07 - please can you have a look at this PR and give @Pkylas007 some guidance

Thanks

[shdeshpa07]

@shdeshpa07 - please can you have a look at this PR and give @Pkylas007 some guidance

Thanks

Hi @anarnold97 and @Pkylas007 - Would it be better if I just take over the PR, work through the review comments and merge it after? Also, does this PR cover all the work for the DITA work for OADP doc set 1? If so, I will also back port it to 4.14. Thanks.

[Pkylas007]

@shdeshpa07 - please can you have a look at this PR and give @Pkylas007 some guidance Thanks

Hi @anarnold97 and @Pkylas007 - Would it be better if I just take over the PR, work through the review comments and merge it after? Also, does this PR cover all the work for the DITA work for OADP doc set 1? If so, I will also back port it to 4.14. Thanks.

Hi @shdeshpa07 This PR should not contain changes to content because it's a part of a specific modularization effort. However, if you think that's what OCP needs, then please go ahead: make content changes. Thanks!

DITA work for set 1 has only this PR.

[shdeshpa07]

@shdeshpa07 - please can you have a look at this PR and give @Pkylas007 some guidance Thanks

Hi @anarnold97 and @Pkylas007 - Would it be better if I just take over the PR, work through the review comments and merge it after? Also, does this PR cover all the work for the DITA work for OADP doc set 1? If so, I will also back port it to 4.14. Thanks.

Hi @shdeshpa07 This PR should not contain changes to content because it's a part of a specific modularization effort. However, if you think that's what OCP needs, then please go ahead: make content changes. Thanks!

DITA work for set 1 has only this PR.

@Pkylas007 - Thanks. You are correct. THere should be no content changes. I am yet to look into detail what the specific comments are. But, apart from the content changes, is there is any specific guidance you need from me? If not, could you squash the commits please, so I can do a quick review and merge it :).

[openshift-merge-robot]

PR needs rebase.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[Pkylas007]

@shdeshpa07 - please can you have a look at this PR and give @Pkylas007 some guidance Thanks

Hi @anarnold97 and @Pkylas007 - Would it be better if I just take over the PR, work through the review comments and merge it after? Also, does this PR cover all the work for the DITA work for OADP doc set 1? If so, I will also back port it to 4.14. Thanks.

Hi @shdeshpa07 This PR should not contain changes to content because it's a part of a specific modularization effort. However, if you think that's what OCP needs, then please go ahead: make content changes. Thanks! DITA work for set 1 has only this PR.

@Pkylas007 - Thanks. You are correct. THere should be no content changes. I am yet to look into detail what the specific comments are. But, apart from the content changes, is there is any specific guidance you need from me? If not, could you squash the commits please, so I can do a quick review and merge it :).

@shdeshpa07 Thank you :) I've squashed the commits.

[openshift-ci[bot]]

@Pkylas007: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/validate-portal	f25dce0cfafa9a683901d03eb8f0058087c71951	link	true	/test validate-portal
ci/prow/validate-asciidoc	f25dce0cfafa9a683901d03eb8f0058087c71951	link	true	/test validate-asciidoc

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[Pkylas007]

@shdeshpa07 The include statements in the modules added in this PR have the necessary 1-line spacing in the main branch. Hence, I'm closing this PR as it is redundant. Thanks for looking into this!