-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs-ci: Reduce unnecessary linkchecks #116
Comments
The one issue I can see here is if somebody adds a new link, which works fine for interactive browsing, but not the automated link checking (a la most/all the 403s that we've ended up excluding). Of course, if people manually run the link check when adding new links, this won't be an issue, but that seems like exactly the sort of thing that will get skipped. Can we combine 1 and 2? (I.e., run a weekly job that only triggers link checking if there was a change in |
Best of both worlds! That sounds good to me. |
Uh, that sounds like worst of both worlds? If the weekly job only runs when we change docs, then it won't catch when the external world changes and our unchanged links break. That's a huge point of linkcheck. |
Oh right. Then (2) alone isn't great either. It would have to be (1) scheduled + (2) checks on PRs if we want immediate checks. Right now we're relying on an abundance of (2) (without filtering to docs-only changes) to verify existing links. |
Yep, indeed. I do the equivalent of (1) + (2) for the installation check I use for the CLI and it's been helpful. |
Description
The purpose of running
make linkcheck
is to ensure:There was a huge benefit when adding this check, which surfaced all the invalid links that had been sitting unnoticed. However, I don't think we've gained much from it since then. The check is running on every single code change to a repo with a docs project. It's mostly been false-positives and I can only recall one true positive.
Possible solutions
inputs.docs-directory
.priority: lowTo be resolved after high and moderate priority issues
With #106 resolved, things should be manageable. The benefits are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: