Skip to content

docs: Update guide on PPE pricing model - #1064

Open
szaganek wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
docs-ppe-monetization
Open

docs: Update guide on PPE pricing model#1064
szaganek wants to merge 2 commits into
masterfrom
docs-ppe-monetization

Conversation

@szaganek

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Removes outdated info on Actors running indefinitely.
  • Restructures the whole guide.
  • Adds missing sections so both SDKs can mirror each other better (JS guide not updated yet)

Related to the recent updates to platform docs #2770.

@szaganek szaganek self-assigned this Jul 27, 2026
@szaganek szaganek added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team. labels Jul 27, 2026
@szaganek
szaganek requested a review from vdusek July 27, 2026 10:20
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.89%. Comparing base (b20f264) to head (744354c).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1064   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.89%   91.89%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines        3232     3232           
=======================================
  Hits         2970     2970           
  Misses        262      262           
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 35.33% <ø> (ø)
integration 57.08% <ø> (ø)
unit 83.26% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@vdusek vdusek left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Two comments for consideration; otherwise LGTM.

Comment thread docs/02_concepts/11_pay_per_event.mdx

<RunnableCodeBlock className="language-python" language="python">
{ConditionalActorChargeSource}
</RunnableCodeBlock>

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't there be some conclusion?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

About that conclusion, where does it come from? We don't use it anywhere in the docs except for here. Frankly, it's not really useful. Is it some legacy?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC, it was already part of the existing content when I joined, so I just followed the established structure.

Removing it from a single page and leaving it on the others is inconsistent. If we decide that these sections are unnecessary, we should apply that change across the whole documentation.

As for whether they should be there at all, I'm in favor of keeping them. IMO learning-oriented content benefits from an ending that summarizes the key takeaways or points readers toward what to explore next.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I brought it up at the docs meeting, we discussed it, and decided that we should get rid of the Conclusion section everywhere. The main reasons are consistency with the rest of the docs plus these sections don't add much value in the current form. These docs aren't a course to follow, they aren't read like a book.

I'll review all these sections and move some of the content to the introductions, where it makes sense.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, please leave it in this PR for now and open a follow-up PR to remove them, since it's unrelated to these changes.

@vdusek vdusek left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

let's resolve the conclusion thing first

szaganek added a commit to apify/apify-sdk-js that referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2026
- Removes outdated info on Actors running indefinitely.
- Restructures the whole guide.
- Adds missing sections so both SDKs can mirror each other better
([Python PR](apify/apify-sdk-python#1064))

Related to the recent updates to platform docs
[#2770](apify/apify-docs#2770).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants