Skip to content

docs(drift): dune to codex migration - #358

Merged
pedromcunha merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1066-af7c7c4
Aug 12, 2026
Merged

docs(drift): dune to codex migration#358
pedromcunha merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1066-af7c7c4

Conversation

@pedromcunha

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Drafted from relayprotocol/relay-kit#1066, requested by @pedromcunha.

This PR was auto-generated by the docs-draft-pr workflow from a Claude-drafted update in the source repo. It is opened as a draft — please review, edit as needed, and mark ready for review before merging.

Review checklist

  • Content matches the behavior shipped in the source PR
  • No internal-only details (service names, file paths, unreleased names, security internals) leaked into the draft
  • Conforms to CLAUDE.md style rules
  • Cross-references and internal links resolve
  • Any Needs human input items from the source comment are addressed

Generated by docs-draft-pr.yml in relayprotocol/relay-kit.

@pedromcunha pedromcunha self-assigned this Jul 7, 2026
@pedromcunha
pedromcunha marked this pull request as ready for review July 10, 2026 13:06
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude encountered an error after 1m 43s —— View job


Reviewing PR #358 — docs drift draft from relay-kit#1066

  • Read changed files and diff
  • Verify content matches source PR behavior (duneConfigcodexConfig)
  • Check for style-guide (CLAUDE.md) conformance
  • Check cross-references / links resolve
  • Check for stale dune references left behind
  • Post review

@pedromcunha pedromcunha changed the title docs(drift): draft from relayprotocol/relay-kit#1066 docs(drift): dune to codex migration Jul 15, 2026
@pedromcunha
pedromcunha requested a review from ted-palmer August 12, 2026 02:26
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude encountered an error after 2m 40s —— View job


Review — PR #358 (docs drift from relay-kit#1066)

  • Read changed files and diff
  • Verify content matches source PR behavior (duneConfigcodexConfig)
  • Check for style-guide (AGENTS.md) conformance
  • Check cross-references / links resolve
  • Check for stale dune references left behind
  • Post review

The rename itself is clean and complete. Three things worth addressing before merge, one of which I'd consider blocking.


1. Missing changelog entry for a breaking option rename — AGENTS.md §4.2

duneConfigcodexConfig renames a public RelayKitProvider option. §4.2 requires breaking changes be logged in a per-product changelog, and explicitly names references/relay-kit/ui/changelog.mdx as the page to create "when the first breaking change in that surface ships." That page doesn't exist yet — this looks like the first UI-surface breaking change, so it should be created here.

This matters practically: an integrator who upgrades and keeps passing duneConfig gets no error. The option is silently ignored and token balances quietly vanish from the token selector — exactly the failure mode the changelog exists to catch. The pages-in-place edit is correct per §4.2, but the changelog is the only place that upgrade signal lives.

Fix this →

(Side note, pre-existing and out of scope: references/api/changelog.mdx exists on disk but isn't wired into docs.json — it currently renders only via direct URL.)

2. references/relay-kit/ui/relay-kit-provider.mdx:18 — bare docs link where the old one deep-linked

The sentence promises "how to get an API key," but https://docs.codex.io is the docs homepage. The Dune link it replaced pointed at …/authentication#generate-an-api-key. Worth deep-linking to Codex's equivalent page so the sentence delivers what it says.

Fix this →

3. relay-kit-provider.mdx:19 — please confirm the default https://graph.codex.io

This is a new factual claim that wasn't in the old text. Codex's GraphQL endpoint is commonly written as https://graph.codex.io/graphql, so it's worth checking whether the default in RelayKitProvider.tsx includes the /graphql path — anyone building the proxy this row describes will copy the value verbatim.

I could not verify this myself: fetching the source PR's file diffs required a permission this job doesn't have, so I only had the source PR's file list (which does confirm a demo/pages/api/codex/graphql.ts proxy was added, consistent with the GraphQL framing). Treat this as a check-against-source item, not a confirmed defect.

4. Style nits

  • :19 — "The base url" → "The base URL".
  • :19 — the apiBaseUrl cell is now three sentences. §2.7 says keep cell descriptions concise and move long explanations into prose below the table; the default-value sentence is the natural candidate to move. Fix this →
  • §2.7 wants Property cells bolded (**codexConfig.apiKey**). The entire Options table already skips this, so the changed rows are locally consistent — noting it only as optional cleanup, not a regression from this PR.

What checks out

  • No stale dune references anywhere in the repo. A case-insensitive grep across the whole tree returns zero matches, so nothing was left behind in troubleshooting.mdx, swap-widget.mdx, or elsewhere — the §4.2 "update inbound links" requirement is satisfied.
  • YOUR_CODEX_KEY matches the §2.8 all-caps placeholder convention, and both installation.mdx code blocks were updated consistently.
  • Capitalization improved — the old cell said "the dune api"; the new text uses "Codex API", matching §5.
  • Scope is right. The source PR also deletes useDuneBalances / useEclipseBalance and adds useCodexBalances / useSolanaBalance, but those are relay-kit-ui internal hooks. The Hooks reference documents only @relayprotocol/relay-kit-hooks exports, so no hooks page needed touching.

No changes were pushed — this is review feedback only.
· docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1066-af7c7c4

@pedromcunha
pedromcunha merged commit 0234216 into main Aug 12, 2026
3 of 4 checks passed
@pedromcunha
pedromcunha deleted the docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1066-af7c7c4 branch August 12, 2026 02:32
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