Conversation
Proposes four approaches for enabling PR-specific demo and preview functionality: - Website PR preview deployments (label-triggered) - Dedicated code review example template - External sandbox integration (CodePen/CodeSandbox) - Automatic browser deployments (Layer and Basemap) Includes discussion of hosting options, cleanup strategies, and open questions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
chrisgervang
requested review from
Pessimistress,
charlieforward9,
felixpalmer and
ibgreen
| - Full website build may be slow/expensive | ||
| - Requires API keys in GitHub secrets | ||
|
|
||
| ### Option B: Dedicated Code Review Example Template |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this option is my favorite, as for new features I often develop a test app for verification which would be nice to share
| **Mechanism:** | ||
| - GitHub Action builds and publishes a deck.gl UMD bundle to a CDN (e.g., Cloudflare) | ||
| - PR comment includes link to a sandbox template that loads this bundle | ||
| - Authors can fork and customize the sandbox |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having to customize the sandbox doesn't sound user-friendly to me, I much prefer to have the example running locally
|
|
||
| This RFC presents several approaches that could be implemented independently or in combination. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Option A: Website PR Preview Deployments |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see option A & D as nice to haves, more as a way to verify a change hasn't broken anything - but pulling the branch and the running the website/layer-browser isn't so bad
| ## Open Questions | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Which approach(es) would provide the most value to start with? | ||
| 2. Should previews be automatic or opt-in (label-triggered)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think they should be label-triggered
| |--------|------|------| | ||
| | GitHub Pages | Free, integrated | Single branch limitation, cleanup complexity | | ||
| | Cloudflare Pages | Fast, generous free tier | Additional service to manage | | ||
| | Vercel | Easy setup, preview URLs built-in | May have limits for open source | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No experience between them, but you make Vercel sound the best :)
| 1. Which approach(es) would provide the most value to start with? | ||
| 2. Should previews be automatic or opt-in (label-triggered)? | ||
| 3. What's the preferred hosting solution? | ||
| 4. How do we handle API keys needed for basemap providers? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the initial example we could skip basemap support? Otherwise I guess it depends on the provider, hopefully we could somehow whitelist the keys for our URLs without exposing them
3 participants
Summary
This RFC proposes adding PR-specific demo and preview functionality to deck.gl, making it easier for reviewers to test changes without needing to clone branches and run examples locally.
Proposals
The RFC discusses four approaches that could be implemented independently or in combination:
Open Questions
See the RFC for detailed pros/cons of each approach and implementation considerations.
Note
Low Risk
Documentation-only change adding a draft RFC; no code or runtime behavior is modified.
Overview
Adds a new draft RFC document (
dev-docs/RFCs/proposals/pr-preview-demos-rfc.md) proposing PR-specific preview/demo workflows to make visual review easier without local setup.The RFC outlines four implementation options (label-triggered website previews, a temporary code-review example, external sandbox integration, and automatic browser-example deployments) plus hosting, cleanup, and
pull_request_target/secrets security considerations and open questions.Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 61d5a3f. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.