chore: fix broken docs.aspect.build links#2770
Conversation
|
|
|
Summary
Errors per inputErrors in docs/faq.md
Errors in docs/pnpm.md
Errors in docs/troubleshooting.md
Errors in README.md
Redirects per inputRedirects in docs/troubleshooting.md
Redirects in README.md
|
kapunahelewong
force-pushed
the
fix_links
branch
from
6ba95c8 to
e7efcb9
Compare
js/private/js_binary.bzl
Outdated
|
|
||
| * JS_BINARY__NODE_BINARY: the Node.js binary path run by the `js_binary` target | ||
| * JS_BINARY__NPM_BINARY: the npm binary path; this is available when [`include_npm`](https://docs.aspect.build/rules/aspect_rules_js/docs/js_binary#include_npm) is `True` on the `js_binary` target | ||
| * JS_BINARY__NPM_BINARY: the npm binary path; this is available when [`include_npm`](https://docs.aspect.build/bazel/javascript/aspect_rules_js/js_defs#include_npm) is `True` on the `js_binary` target |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The #include_npm seems to go nowhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh this is me getting clowned by claude! My apologies, @jbedard. Upon closer inspection, I didn't find much info in our docs on include_npm. Claude recommended this https://docs.aspect.build/bazel/javascript/aspect_rules_js/js_defs#function-js_binary but there's no info there.
In the meantime, I've dropped the link, but would you have any recommendations on where we might want to link to for info?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In light of this #2770 (comment), @jbedard,
do we want to use https://docs.aspect.build/bazel/javascript/aspect_rules_js/js_defs#function-js_binary?
kapunahelewong
force-pushed
the
fix_links
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a605801 to
0806eba
Compare
Update all outdated links in README.md and docs/ that pointed to old /rules/ and /rulesets/ URL patterns or HTTP redirects: - docs.aspect.build/rules/* and /rulesets/* → new /bazel/ path structure - docs.aspect.build/workflows → aspect-workflows/get-started/overview - docs.aspect.build/rules → docs.aspect.build/ - github.com/bazelbuild/rules_nodejs → github.com/bazel-contrib/rules_nodejs - http://typescriptlang.org → https://www.typescriptlang.org - https://cypress.io → https://www.cypress.io - jq rule link removed (rule no longer exists in bazel_lib) - rules_jest troubleshooting link removed (page no longer exists) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
kapunahelewong
force-pushed
the
fix_links
branch
from
0806eba to
ec7b17d
Compare
|
Before merging this PR, could we first make sure that https://github.com/aspect-build/docs/pull/180 is merged because we're linking to it from this PR, @alexeagle ? |
|
Regarding the failing CI checks because of timing out (429, too many requests), Claude recommended I do this, but I wanted to check with you first, @alexeagle:
Can and should I do this? |
|
If you want to do that lets discuss it in a separate PR |
|
I already spent some time fighting with Lychee, including those suggested techniques. I propose we take it out of the PR flow for now, and run periodically like they recommend as the default setup. Yes Jason, we will probably ignore the data but it's better than the false positives we're getting now. |
4 participants
Addresses broken links mentioned in #2711 (comment).
Update all links using the old
/rules/and/rulesets/URL patterns to the new/bazel/path structure ondocs.aspect.build.The old URL patterns (e.g.
docs.aspect.build/rules/aspect_rules_js/...) now redirect to a brokenrules-redirectpage. This updates all occurrences across.bzlfiles, docs, and e2e test snapshots to the new URL structure.Two cases had no direct replacement:
jqrule docs (npm/private/npm_package.bzl): Thejqrule was removed frombazel_libentirely, so the link was removed. The docstring still references the jq rule by name.rules_jesttroubleshooting page (docs/troubleshooting.md): The troubleshooting page forrules_jestno longer exists at the new URL structure. The broken link was removed; the text now points to therules_jestGitHub repo instead.Changes are visible to end-users: no
Test plan