You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a follow-up of #727 and related to #681. Since make linkcheck is somewhat unreliable and can't be required for regular PR, the idea is to use a workflow to run it regularly and create (or update) an issue when a link is unreachable. Note that make linkcheck is already run for PRs, but the result is only visible by looking at the logs.
And here's an example of an issue that the bot auto-created when the test failed: python/typeshed#7572
This workflow creates a new issue every time, and it might be ok if it's run weekly/monthly however -- if we want to run it more frequently -- updating an existing issue might be a better approach.
Since make linkcheck is somewhat unreliable and can't be required for regular PR
FWIW, for spyder-ide/spyder-docs which is of the same OOM as this repo, we do run it for every PR, and periodically (every couple months) update any redirects. However, I certainly wouldn't run it for a repo much bigger than this, like the PEPs or docs, and I could certainly see why that wouldn't be desirable even at this scale, depending on the number and fickleness of the links involved, as well as the obvious workflow considerations.
One concern: if the cron is often failing (which it might, and often), we don't want it to show the repo as failed at the top:
I believe you could make the action itself not mark itself as failed if the linkcheck fails, but just open the issue, so the whole repo doesn't go red?
This is a follow-up of #727 and related to #681. Since
make linkcheck
is somewhat unreliable and can't be required for regular PR, the idea is to use a workflow to run it regularly and create (or update) an issue when a link is unreachable. Note thatmake linkcheck
is already run for PRs, but the result is only visible by looking at the logs.@AlexWaygood shared a similar workflow in #727 (comment):
This workflow creates a new issue every time, and it might be ok if it's run weekly/monthly however -- if we want to run it more frequently -- updating an existing issue might be a better approach.
@hugovk also raised a concern in #727 (comment)
If this sounds useful we can agree on the details, fix the currently broken links, and adapt the workflow linked above.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: