Tech Doc hyperlinks in center column route to 404

Question

Tech Doc hyperlinks in center column route to 404

mccamon opened this issue 3 years ago · comments

Start at https://interledger.org/rfcs/0027-interledger-protocol-4/ Index in left column works properly as build from the yml file in CloudCannon. Issue is with links in main (center) column. For instance visit https://interledger.org/rfcs/0009-simple-payment-setup-protocol/ then review the STREAM hyperlink in the body copy. Hover shows the link is https://interledger.org/rfcs/0029-stream/0029-stream.md Clicking on this link resolved to 404. While I did not exhaustive verify each instance of this issue, I did reproduce the error with other center column links on other doc pages like: https://interledger.org/rfcs/0031-dynamic-configuration-protocol/ (Interledger Architecture), and https://interledger.org/rfcs/0032-peering-clearing-settlement/ (Specification).

Tom Beck · Answer 1 · Fri Apr 09 2021 22:44:18 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@mccamon
I did some further digging on this issue and it looks like these have always been broken links. Within the context of Github they behave as expected, but when we pull in the spec content the relative paths don't work as you outlined.

You can see what I mean here:
https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0009-simple-payment-setup-protocol/0009-simple-payment-setup-protocol.md

It is not always consistent in the specs though and I have found instances that link to the folder rather than the .md file
ie... The links in this spec content
https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0026-payment-pointers/0026-payment-pointers.md

Possible Solutions:

Update spec content so that all links point to folder rather than .md files
Write a custom filter (regex) that would strip the filename and extension from those links as we pull spec content on build.
Add a redirect pattern that could catch all .md requests and redirect accordingly.
Dynamically update all spec links to point to Github instead of the

Let me know if you have any insight or opinions on the solutions I outlined here? Especially with regards to 4.
Otherwise... we will attempt to implement either the second or third option and test.

Thanks!

Mike McCamon · Answer 2 · Fri Apr 09 2021 22:59:29 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Yikes, that’s a real riddle. Personally where possible I like categorical solutions. Before I answer wouldn’t #1 fix this for good and create higher reliability long term and in other places where it might get ingested? Clearly it’s not a quick as we would need to submit pull requests on the original doc. Maybe they could help clean that up too?? ================ Mike McCamon 913.940.2737 "Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest." - Mark Twain

…

On Apr 9, 2021, at 9:44 AM, Tom Beck ***@***.***> wrote: @mccamon I did some further digging on this issue and it looks like these have always been broken links. Within the context of Github they behave as expected, but when we pull in the spec content the relative paths don't work as you outlined. You can see what I mean here: https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0009-simple-payment-setup-protocol/0009-simple-payment-setup-protocol.md It is not always consistent in the specs though and I have found instances that link to the folder rather than the .md file ie... The links in this spec content https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0026-payment-pointers/0026-payment-pointers.md Possible Solutions: Update spec content so that all links point to folder rather than .md files Write a custom filter (regex) that would strip the filename and extension from those links as we pull spec content on build. Add a redirect pattern that could catch all .md requests and redirect accordingly. Dynamically update all spec links to point to Github instead of the Let me know if you have any insight or opinions on the solutions I outlined here? Especially with regards to 4. Otherwise... we will attempt to implement either the second or third option and test. Thanks! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

Tom Beck · Answer 3 · Sat Apr 10 2021 01:23:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Yes... the first option is the easiest on our end and would prevent us from inadvertently causing additional issues with link paths.

Mike McCamon · Answer 4 · Sat Apr 10 2021 02:47:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Okay I agree #1 is best. So what's the easiest way to get that fixed (and by whom?) I don't mind submitting pull requests, just want to be sure it's correct and complete.

Tom Beck · Answer 5 · Wed Apr 14 2021 04:15:00 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@mccamon - I don't know who would be responsible for this. It would need to be someone on the Interledger side though. Adrian or Briana should know.

Tom Beck · Answer 6 · Wed Jun 23 2021 02:00:38 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@mccamon - Just pushed a simple fix for this to the develop branch.