Workflow file is not in sync with GFguide requirements, causing release failure

[n8willis]

The issue:

The latest update to the workflow file:
https://github.com/googlefonts/googlefonts-project-template/blame/ca4b21bee0745406b28c1a647d02802634e03a1a/.github/workflows/build.yaml#L91

has hardcoded-in locations for ARTICLE.en_us.html and DESCRIPTION.en_us.html. It looks for ARTICLE to be in the documentation/ directory, but the guide tells designers that it should be in article/ (see https://googlefonts.github.io/gf-guide/article.html#the-article ).

Therefore the "Create and populate release" job fails if the designer follows the guide.

The job also fails if DESCRIPTION is not in documentation/, even though the guide says that DESCRIPTION is deprecated, and even though older versions of the template repo had DESCRIPTION in the project root. The guide also doesn't say where, specifically, the DESCRIPTION file needs to be, although it says "This file follows the same requirements as the Article file" which implies article/.

Solution: either the workflow or the guide needs changing so that they match.

Secondarily, if DOCUMENTATION is considered legacy now, then its absence shouldn't cause the job to fail.

[simoncozens]

It looks for ARTICLE to be in the documentation/ directory, but the guide tells designers that it should be in article/

The guide says:

The ARTICLE.en_us.html file and images should live in an article/ directory alongside the METADATA.pb file in the root of the ofl/fontname directory.

The second part of that sentence implies that we are talking about the google/fonts repository, not the font source repository. Maybe we should do more than imply it, but it's not referring to what you think it's referring to.

[n8willis]

I am politely suggesting that you know what it's "referring to" because, independently of reading the page text, you already know that some other specific meaning is intended. For a person who comes in from the outside, that meaning is not at all communicated.

[simoncozens]

I completely agree that the guide needs clarifying. I don't think there's a bug in googlefonts-project-template, though.