CI Visibility Terminology does not explicitly confirm Datadog terminology absent in CI provider

[swanson8r]

Documentation Page

• https://docs.datadoghq.com/getting_started/ci_visibility/?tab=pipeline#set-up-your-ci-provider
• https://docs.datadoghq.com/continuous_integration/pipelines/github/#terminology
• https://docs.datadoghq.com/continuous_integration/troubleshooting/#missing-stages-or-jobs-in-summary-tables
• https://docs.datadoghq.com/continuous_integration/pipelines/#supported-features

Issue Description

1. CI Visibility Integration dashboards include a Group for Stages, which are not present in CI Provider Github Actions.
2. This absence can be inferred as expected from entries in GitHub Actions Setup for CI Visibility > Terminology, but is not explicitly confirmed in the document.
3. Further confusion is added in CI Visibility Troubleshooting > Missing stages or jobs in summary tables, whose link to public API endpoint specification shows Supported Features, but not a clear summary of which Providers support which Terms.
4. Getting Started with CI Visibility > Set up your CI provider has a broken anchor link to a generic Terminology section.

Update

5. CI Visibility Guides > Pipeline Data Model And Execution Types > Data Model does explicitly state "Some CI providers do not have this level."

Proposed Solution

1. Create a separate issue against https://github.com/DataDog/integrations-core to address empty widget groups for providers where a term is absent.
2. Update Terminology tables in each CI Provider document with an entry for each Datadog Term (pipeline, stage, job, step, command).
3. For Terms not supported by all CI Providers, add a row to the Supported Features table, and check marks for providers that do support the term.
4. Confirm or update the dead link from Getting Started with CI Visibility > Set up your CI provider now goes to this updated table.
5. Make the relevant contents of Guide documentation more obvious in the main feature section by adding a link, moving or copying the contents where a user would first need to encounter it.

[sasmita016]

Hi, I’d like to work on this issue. I’ll review the current documentation, identify the gaps, and propose a clear update with improvements.
I’ll share a PR shortly—happy to incorporate any feedback from the team.