Skip to content
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

services/horizon/internal/docs: Use full links instead of relative links. #1898

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

abuiles
Copy link
Contributor

@abuiles abuiles commented Oct 31, 2019

PR Checklist

PR Structure

  • This PR has reasonably narrow scope (if not, break it down into smaller PRs).
  • This PR avoids mixing refactoring changes with feature changes (split into two PRs
    otherwise).
  • This PR's title starts with name of package that is most changed in the PR, ex.
    services/friendbot, or all or doc if the changes are broad or impact many
    packages.

Thoroughness

  • This PR adds tests for the most critical parts of the new functionality or fixes.
  • I've updated any docs (developer docs, .md
    files, etc... affected by this change). Take a look in the docs folder for a given service,
    like this one.

Release planning

  • I've updated the relevant CHANGELOG (here for Horizon) if
    needed with deprecations, added features, breaking changes, and DB schema changes.
  • I've decided if this PR requires a new major/minor version according to
    semver, or if it's mainly a patch change. The PR is targeted at the next
    release branch if it's not a patch change.

What

Use full URL for some links.

Why

Some of the fixed links don't work today in the production docs and also fixes some links added in #1887

Known limitations

N/A

@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla: yes label Oct 31, 2019
@abuiles abuiles changed the title Use full links instead of relative links. services/horizon/internal/docs: Use full links instead of relative links. Nov 1, 2019
@ire-and-curses
Copy link
Contributor

Hey! There's a couple of reasons we've been using relative links:

  1. It decouples the docs from the deployment domain (i.e. we aren't hard-coding developers.stellar.org everywhere)
  2. It allows the doc links to work when viewed on Github.

I do agree that some of the links were broken (this is my bad, I promised to fix them and didn't). But this could be resolved by just changing the relative path.

What do you think? My preference is to use relative links and just fix the paths, unless there are other pros to the full paths that I didn't surface here.

@abuiles
Copy link
Contributor Author

abuiles commented Nov 1, 2019

@ire-and-curses I agree with you, I prefer relative links rather than full links. Actually we might not need this change, we thought using ../../../guides will break under /developers but I just tested one of the links in master using this schema and it works. So it's all good!

I'll open a different PR to fix the broken links to XDR.

@abuiles abuiles closed this Nov 1, 2019
@abuiles abuiles deleted the fix-links branch November 1, 2019 15:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants