Adding description for pending frontend plugin slots

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Description

Adding descriptions for the pending plugin slots from authoring and learning mfe's.
Since we already created some docs for some plugins slots on their own repos, this should be reflected on the global docs for openEdx.

Dependencies

• adding comprehensive readme documentation for plugin slots frontend-app-learning#1770
• update docs for additional course plugin slot frontend-app-authoring#2315
• update readme for AdditionalTranslationsComponentSlot frontend-app-authoring#2321

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @jacobo-dominguez-wgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/docs-openedx-org-maintainers.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[sarina]

Wow thanks so much for this @jacobo-dominguez-wgu !!!!

@brian-smith-tcril do you mind giving this a once-over before I merge it?

[brian-smith-tcril]

These look good! I do have a couple questions about how we want to handle these links:

• I know for the teak docs we'll want to link to the teak branches of the repos. It seems all these links on main are also linking to the teak branches, do we want to keep linking to teak from main or should we link to main/master from main?
• The dependency PRs landed on master, should we backport those to teak? (I'd think yes since they are just documentation)
• If we want these links to still point to the teak branches, then should this PR depend on those being backported to teak? (I'd think no as the links are still valid, the docs just won't be fleshed out until the backports land)

[sarina]

I know for the teak docs we'll want to link to the teak branches of the repos. It seems all these links on main are also linking to the teak branches, do we want to keep linking to teak from main or should we link to main/master from main?

These are the Teak release notes (point-in-time documentation) so we should link to Teak branch.

The dependency PRs landed on master, should we backport those to teak? (I'd think yes since they are just documentation)

Yes

If we want these links to still point to the teak branches, then should this PR depend on those being backported to teak?

Might as well so we can remember to verify that the docs render with clickable links.

[brian-smith-tcril]

These are the Teak release notes (point-in-time documentation) so we should link to Teak branch.

Perfect. I just wanted to confirm since the PRs updating the docs on the repos are going to master branches.

The dependency PRs landed on master, should we backport those to teak? (I'd think yes since they are just documentation)

Yes

Sounds great! @jacobo-dominguez-wgu would you be able to make some backport PRs to get the documentation that's landed into the teak branches?

Might as well so we can remember to verify that the docs render with clickable links.

The PRs to the repos aren't changing the URLs at all, just adding documentation to the barebones READMEs that already exist.

[sarina]

🤦🏻‍♀️ yes duh, okay then this PR is not blocked on the backport. If the descriptions look good to you go ahead and merge!

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Sounds great! @jacobo-dominguez-wgu would you be able to make some backport PRs to get the documentation that's landed into the teak branches?

Sure, I will create those backports, thanks!

[brian-smith-tcril]