feat: Mirror the wizard setup report into a PostHog notebook and open it#868
Draft
gewenyu99 wants to merge 6 commits into
Draft
feat: Mirror the wizard setup report into a PostHog notebook and open it#868gewenyu99 wants to merge 6 commits into
gewenyu99 wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
At the end of an integration run the wizard converts the local posthog-setup-report.md to a PostHog notebook, opens it in the browser, and links it in the outro; the local markdown stays the source of truth. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Markdown "- [ ]" / "- [x]" lines now map to tiptap taskList/taskItem nodes instead of a bullet with literal "[ ]" text, which the notebook's markdown serializer escaped to "\[ \]". Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
🧙 Wizard CIRun the Wizard CI and test your changes against wizard-workbench example apps by replying with a GitHub comment using one of the following commands: Test all apps:
Test all apps in a directory:
Test an individual app:
Show more apps
Results will be posted here when complete. |
Tell the Pi harness to write posthog-setup-report.md as valid markdown starting with an H1 and to strip templating/delimiter strings (e.g. <wizard-report>) that appear in the format example, instead of writing them into the file verbatim. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
PostHog notebooks hold raw markdown in a single ph-markdown-notebook node, so hand the report markdown straight to the API instead of converting it to ProseMirror. PostHog renders checklists, tables, and links natively. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Inline the single-node content, drop the provisioning-only API-Version and User-Agent headers (the REST API just needs the bearer token), and remove the content-shape test — notebook.ts is now one function. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
gewenyu99
changed the title
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we do this with an API call vs using the MCP?
| content: [ | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'ph-markdown-notebook', | ||
| attrs: { nodeId: 'markdown-notebook-v2', markdown }, |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need to define this twice? Weird, huh
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At the end of an integration run the wizard converts the local
posthog-setup-report.mdinto a PostHog notebook (checklists become task items), opens it in the browser, and links it in the outro; the local markdown stays the source of truth.See:
https://us.posthog.com/project/483112/notebooks/r3OJjEhI?utm_source=wizard&utm_medium=cli&utm_content=notebook
🤖 Generated with Claude Code