docs: update CONTRIBUTING.md

[dinohamzic]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated contribution guidelines: added prerequisites, development/install guidance, making-changes guidance, release workflow, examples, and additional resources.
  • Updated documented minimum JupyterLab compatibility to 4.4.0

[linear]

MAR-254 CONTRIBUTING guide for deepnote/jupyterlab-deepnote

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Documentation-only changes: CONTRIBUTING.md reorganized and expanded with a new Prerequisites section, detailed Development/Install guidance (Node.js/Python environment setup, GitHub token instructions), a new “Making Changes” section (Code Style and Pull Requests), Release workflow, Additional Resources, Questions, and example commands. README.md updated the documented minimum JupyterLab requirement from 4.0.0 to 4.4.0. No source code, exported/public API, or functional logic was modified.

Possibly related PRs

• docs: compatibility and maintenance plans #50 — Updates documentation to require JupyterLab >= 4.4.0, addressing the same compatibility note.

Suggested Reviewers

• jamesbhobbs
• saltenasl
• Artmann

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The pull request title accurately describes the primary change: CONTRIBUTING.md was indeed updated with documentation improvements including new sections, development guidance, and release workflow instructions. While README.md was also modified to update the minimum JupyterLab version requirement, the PR's branch name and stated objectives confirm CONTRIBUTING.md as the main focus. The title is clear, specific, and directly related to the changeset's primary objective, allowing a teammate scanning history to understand the core purpose.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.56%. Comparing base (504f851) to head (52bb45e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #67   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.56%   69.56%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines         253      253           
  Branches       28       28           
=======================================
  Hits          176      176           
  Misses         73       73           
  Partials        4        4           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

56-58: Correct placeholder text inconsistency.

Line 56 shows the template variable as lowercase your_token_here, but line 58 instructs to replace YOUR_TOKEN_HERE (uppercase). Align the placeholder formatting.

Apply this diff to fix:

   ```shell
   export GITHUB_TOKEN=your_token_here

• Replace YOUR_TOKEN_HERE with your actual token.

• Replace your_token_here with your actual token.

</blockquote></details>

</blockquote></details>

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 504f851 and 3d6873d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• CONTRIBUTING.md (2 hunks)
• README.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

CONTRIBUTING.md

205-205: Link fragments should be valid

(MD051, link-fragments)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

README.md (1)

36-36: Consistent version requirement documentation.

The minimum JupyterLab requirement update to 4.4.0 is clearly justified (line 142) and consistently documented across the README and CONTRIBUTING.md.

Also applies to: 142-142

CONTRIBUTING.md (2)

7-15: Prerequisites section is well-structured.

Clear requirements listing with version constraints, helpful links, and context about GitHub token prerequisites.

---

195-209: Additional Resources and Questions sections add value.

Good supplementary materials once the broken link on line 205 is addressed.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3d6873d and 52bb45e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• CONTRIBUTING.md (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)

CONTRIBUTING.md

223-223: Link fragments should be valid

(MD051, link-fragments)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: build
• GitHub Check: check_release

🔇 Additional comments (1)

CONTRIBUTING.md (1)

1-226: Previous broken link issue resolved.

The earlier flag about the broken [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting) anchor at line 205 appears to have been addressed—no such reference exists in the current file. The documentation is well-organized with clear sections and no apparent broken internal anchors.