Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.05%. Comparing base (a9b0a83) to head (ff070d0).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #62045      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.06%   90.05%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         714      714              
  Lines      225629   225629              
  Branches    42702    42679      -23     
==========================================
- Hits       203211   203192      -19     
+ Misses      14232    14222      -10     
- Partials     8186     8215      +29     

The notable-change PRs with changes that should be highlighted in changelogs. label has been added by @avivkeller.

Please suggest a text for the release notes if you'd like to include a more detailed summary, then proceed to update the PR description with the text or a link to the notable change suggested text comment. Otherwise, the commit will be placed in the Other Notable Changes section.

cc @nodejs/build @nodejs/web-infra @nodejs/TSC for reviews

Can't quite verify.

➜  node git:(main) gh pr checkout 62045
Switched to branch 'doc/redesign'
➜  node git:(doc/redesign) make doc-only
mkdir -p out/doc/api
cp -r doc/api out/doc

added 374 packages in 2s
error: too many arguments for 'generate'. Expected 0 arguments but got 1.
make: *** [out/doc/api/addons.html] Error 1

@panva Sorry! I'm still trying to get the thread count to work on all CI machines, but the output from https://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/25992332792?pr=62045 's artifacts have the generated docs.

A lot of the runners use slim machines, which it appears interfere with the generation, so I need to see which CI checks fail.

@avivkeller footnotes don't seem to work, I don't know if it's being tracked or not but leaving that here, also don't know if they don't work generally or as a side effect of the bundle here.

There are 100% docs where this is an improvement and it will take some getting used to. Very subjective.

Some oddities I notice upon first (well, first this time around) look, take it with a grain of salt, I'm very used to the old docs and it's easy to focus on what stands out really quickly. In that way I hope this might be valuable (non-blocking) feedback.

• method parameters/arguments are "attributes"? seems odd
• toc for method lists is barely parseable, consider having toc entries for methods only have the module.method(), i.e. don't list the potentially very long list of parameters
• non-heading main content switching between 14px and 16px font sizes - my poor brain can't grok this, i know there's just two sizes but because it's jumping around the two all over the place it feels inconsistent, eventho it is.
• what do you suggest to use in place of tables? the content width is just too tiny to fit any meaningful table.
• because the old class/property lists used a mix if no-background: Class: Name and class.property it was easy to see you're moving on. Now with just [C] and [P] but otherwise same style (and a 2px font size diff, ...) not so much, it sort of blends all together.

what	old	new
toc
table
interface list