Skip to content

Dead link checker#367

Closed
PiotrKorkus wants to merge 3 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
qorix-group:piotrkorkus_linkcheck
Closed

Dead link checker#367
PiotrKorkus wants to merge 3 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
qorix-group:piotrkorkus_linkcheck

Conversation

@PiotrKorkus
Copy link
Contributor

@PiotrKorkus PiotrKorkus commented Jan 27, 2026

📌 Description

Add bazel target with sphinx builder checking external links. This solves an issue when dead links are referenced.

🚨 Impact Analysis

  • This change does not violate any tool requirements and is covered by existing tool requirements
  • This change does not violate any design decisions
  • Otherwise I have created a ticket for new tool qualification

✅ Checklist

  • Added/updated documentation for new or changed features
  • Added/updated tests to cover the changes
  • Followed project coding standards and guidelines

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 27, 2026 •
edited
Loading

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //src:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output 
[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.3.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 50fd479d-c221-46cb-8345-921aad52aade
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 0 packages loaded
Loading: 0 packages loaded
    currently loading: src
Analyzing: target //src:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //src:license-check (1 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (72 packages loaded, 9 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (123 packages loaded, 1910 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (134 packages loaded, 2484 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //src:license-check (136 packages loaded, 2489 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //src:license-check (137 packages loaded, 4500 targets configured).
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //src:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 12.594s, Critical Path: 0.44s
INFO: 13 processes: 4 disk cache hit, 9 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 13 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/src/license.check.license_check src/formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

PiotrKorkus
PiotrKorkus commented Jan 27, 2026
View reviewed changes
docs/internals/extensions/extension_guide.md
For more information, please see the related documentation:
- [Attaching function signature](https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/extdev/appapi.html#sphinx.application.Sphinx.connect)
- [Build API events](https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/extdev/event_callbacks.html#core-events-overview)
- [sphinx-needs events](https://github.com/useblocks/sphinx-needs/blob/master/docs/contributing.rst#structure-of-the-extensions-logic)
Copy link
Contributor Author

@PiotrKorkus PiotrKorkus Jan 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed outdated "Structure of the extension's logic" section from contributing documentation, deferring to AGENTS.md instead
useblocks/sphinx-needs#1621

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 27, 2026

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@AlexanderLanin
Copy link
Member

AlexanderLanin commented Jan 27, 2026 •
edited
Loading

  • This should be part of docs_check or even normal build?
  • Isn't there some sphinx extension that can already do that? -> ah, its a builder. Thats quite unfortunate.

FScholPer
FScholPer previously approved these changes Jan 27, 2026
View reviewed changes
@AlexanderLanin
Copy link
Member

AlexanderLanin commented Jan 27, 2026

docs_check does not have a builder (not an intentional one). We can change docs_check to use the linkcheck builder?!

@MaximilianSoerenPollak
Copy link
Contributor

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jan 27, 2026

docs_check does not have a builder (not an intentional one). We can change docs_check to use the linkcheck builder?!

Might make the most sense I would say? Since many people use that workflow anyway?
Though the other improvements / changes are still good to have.

@PiotrKorkus PiotrKorkus force-pushed the piotrkorkus_linkcheck branch from e0b4ec9 to 9b5d326 Compare January 27, 2026 09:23
@PiotrKorkus
Copy link
Contributor Author

PiotrKorkus commented Jan 27, 2026

Process description links fixed in eclipse-score/process_description#538
Should be passing now

@AlexanderLanin
Copy link
Member

AlexanderLanin commented Jan 27, 2026

Merging main. Hopefully this will result in proper error message of consumer tests.

@MaximilianSoerenPollak
Copy link
Contributor

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jan 27, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Merging main. Hopefully this will result in proper error message of consumer tests.

~~I think it's stuck. ~~
https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code/actions/runs/21401719523/job/61614344220?pr=367

Holy 30min.. I think we need to speed this up :D
image

AlexanderLanin
AlexanderLanin requested changes Jan 29, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you guys have a call already? Are the next steps aligned?

@MaximilianSoerenPollak
Copy link
Contributor

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Jan 29, 2026

Did you guys have a call already? Are the next steps aligned?

We had a quick chat.
I am taking this PR and putting it as a standalone test/action that also generates issues (as we discussed).
The PR that showcases this (where we also should continue Feedback etc.) #371

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin AlexanderLanin requested changes

@FScholPer FScholPer FScholPer left review comments

@MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak Awaiting requested review from MaximilianSoerenPollak MaximilianSoerenPollak is a code owner

@dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix Awaiting requested review from dcalavrezo-qorix dcalavrezo-qorix is a code owner

@nradakovic nradakovic Awaiting requested review from nradakovic nradakovic is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

INF - Infrastructure Community
Status: Done

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@PiotrKorkus @AlexanderLanin @MaximilianSoerenPollak @FScholPer