Update deploy-fips-compatible-version-of-eck.md - #7806
Conversation
Following feedback on a support case, the ECK operator docs should make more clear that using a FIPS compliant operator does not mean that the deployments made from this operator will automatically be FIPS compliant.
Elastic Docs AI PR menuCheck the box to run an AI review for this pull request.
Powered by GitHub Agentic Workflows and docs-actions. For more information, reach out to the docs team. |
🔍 Preview links for changed docs |
✅ Elastic Docs Style Checker (Vale)No issues found on modified lines! The Vale linter checks documentation changes against the Elastic Docs style guide. To use Vale locally or report issues, refer to Elastic style guide for Vale. |
|
thanks @gbocchini! I think this might need a little elaboration just because of the context of the target page. I'm putting together a commit to address |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Docs review summary
Focus areas
- Style and clarity: The new
:::{important}admonition (line 27) added by this PR contains a sentence fragment ("Which means that, deploying an ECK operator will not make clusters automatically FIPS compliant.") and uses non-descriptive link text ("More"). Flagged inline with a suggested rewrite. Vale reported only wordiness/word-choice suggestions in pre-existing content (prior to,all of,disabled), which are minor and not from this diff's new content. - Jargon: No unexplained Elastic-internal jargon introduced by this change.
- Frontmatter and applies_to: Unchanged by this PR; no issues.
- Content type fit: No change to page structure or type; the new admonition fits the how-to/troubleshooting-adjacent content already on the page.
- Parent issue satisfaction: Not applicable (no linked issue; PR description states intent directly and is otherwise addressed).
Nits
- Line 42: Vale suggests "before" instead of "prior to" (pre-existing text, not part of this diff).
- Line 68: Vale suggests "all" instead of "all of" (pre-existing text, not part of this diff).
- Line 76: Vale suggests avoiding "disabled" per word-choice guidance unless it's the literal UI/setting state term (pre-existing text, not part of this diff).
Notes
- The nits above are in unchanged sections of the file and are included only for completeness; they are not required fixes for this PR.
Generated by Docs review agent for #7806 · sonnet50 · 31.4 AIC · ⌖ 11.6 AIC · ⊞ 15.6K
|
Yey! Thanks @shainaraskas with this I learn more about the docs team process! I hope I can collaborate more without giving you guys extra work lol thanks, really! |
|
hi @barkbay + @moukoublen - @gbocchini raised that the FIPS compatibility at the cluster level is configured separately from ECK operator FIPS compatibility. I've expanded a little on things, but hoping I can get a gut check from you on whether I'm positioning this relationship correctly |
2 participants
Summary
Following feedback on a support case, the ECK operator docs should make more clear that using a FIPS compliant operator does not mean that the deployments made from this operator will automatically be FIPS compliant.
Generative AI disclosure