My original GitHub username is “AndyLPK247“. I created it long before I became the “Automation Panda.” However, I’d like my GitHub account to match the name of my blog (AutomationPanda.com) and my Twitter handle (@AutomationPanda). Using the same name across platforms makes it easier for folks to recognize my work. Plus, I’m writing a book, and I want the links printed in the book to reference Automation Panda.
Therefore, I created a new GitHub account named “AutomationPanda“. (Actually, I created it a while ago to reserve it, just in case I ever wanted to make a change.) I decided to create an entirely new account instead of simply changing my existing account’s username because I’ve created many materials – articles, videos, and courses – that link to my “AndyLPK247” account. If I were to change that username, then many of those links would break. (GitHub’s docs state that repository links would redirect to the new username, but links to gists and to the old name itself would break.)
From this moment forward, I will use “AutomationPanda” as my primary GitHub account. I intend to create all my new repositories under “AutomationPanda” while preserving existing repositories under “AndyLPK247”. Maintaining two GitHub accounts will be a bit of a hassle, but I think it is the best strategy for my situation. Over time, the new account will supersede the old.
TL;DR: If you want to test your full GitHub Pages site before publishing but don’t want to set up Ruby and Jekyll on your local machine, then:
Commit your doc changes to a new branch.
Push the new branch to GitHub.
Temporarily change the repository’s GitHub Pages publishing source to the new branch.
Reload the GitHub Pages site, and review the changes.
If you have a GitHub repository, did you know that you can create your own documentation site for it within GitHub? Using GitHub Pages, you can write your docs as a set of Markdown pages and then configure your repository to generate and publish a static web site for those pages. All you need to do is configure a publishing source for your repository. Your doc site will go live at:
If this is new to you, then you can learn all about this cool feature from the GitHub docs here: Working with GitHub Pages. I just found out about this cool feature myself!
GitHub Pages are great because they make it easy to develop docs and code together as part of the same workflow without needing extra tools. Docs can be written as Markdown files, Liquid templates, or raw assets like HTML and CSS. The docs will be version-controlled for safety and shared from a single source of truth. GitHub Pages also provides free hosting with a decent domain name for the doc site. Clearly, the theme is simplicity.
Unfortunately, I hit one challenge while trying GitHub Pages for the first time: How could I test the doc site before publishing it? A repository using GitHub Pages must be configured with a specific branch and folder (/ (root) or /docs) as the publishing source. As soon as changes are committed to that source, the updated pages go live. However, I want a way to view the doc site in its fullness before committing any changes so I don’t accidentally publish any mistakes.
One way to test pages is to use a Markdown editor. Many IDEs have Markdown editors with preview panes. Even GitHub’s web editor lets you preview Markdown before committing it. Unfortunately, while editor previews may help catch a few typos, they won’t test the full end result of static site generation and deployment. They may also have trouble with links or templates.
GitHub’s docs recommend testing your site locally using Jekyll. Jekyll is a static site generator written in Ruby. GitHub Pages uses Jekyll behind the scenes to turn doc pages into full doc sites. If you want to keep your doc development simple, you can just edit Markdown files and let GitHub do the dirty work. However, if you want to do more hands-on things with your docs like testing site generation, then you need to set up Ruby and Jekyll on your local machine. Thankfully, you don’t need to know any Ruby programming to use Jekyll.
I followed GitHub’s instructions for setting up a GitHub Pages site with Jekyll. I installed Ruby and Jekyll and then created a Jekyll site in the /docs folder of my repository. I verified that I could edit and run my site locally in a branch. However, the setup process felt rather hefty. I’m not a Ruby programmer, so setting up a Ruby environment with a few gems felt like a lot of extra work just to verify that my doc pages looked okay. Plus, I could foresee some developers getting stuck while trying to set up these doc tools, especially if the repository’s main code isn’t a Ruby project. Even if setting up Jekyll locally would be the “right” way to develop and test docs, I still wanted a lighter, faster alternative.
Thankfully, I found a workaround that didn’t require any tools outside of GitHub: Commit doc changes to a branch, push the branch to GitHub, and then temporarily change the repository’s GitHub Pages source to the branch! I originally configured my repository to publish docs from the /docs folder in the main branch. When I changed the publishing source to another branch, it regenerated and refreshed the GitHub Pages site. When I changed it back to main, the site reverted without any issues. Eureka! This is a quick, easy hack for testing changes to docs before merging them. You get to try the full site in the main environment without needing any additional tools or setup.
Now, I recognize that this solution is truly a hack. Changing the publishing source affects the “live”, “production” version of the site. It effectively does publish the changes, albeit temporarily. If some random reader happens to visit the site during this type of testing, they may see incorrect or even broken pages. I’d recommend changing the publishing source’s branch only for small projects and for short periods of time. Don’t forget to revert the branch once testing is complete, too. If you are working on a larger, more serious project, then I’d recommend doing full setup for local doc development. Local setup would be safer and would probably make it easier to try more advanced tricks, like templates and themes.