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

Documentation Links Broken #265

Open
shkkmo opened this issue Oct 10, 2018 · 9 comments
Open

Documentation Links Broken #265

shkkmo opened this issue Oct 10, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@shkkmo
Copy link

shkkmo commented Oct 10, 2018

Many of the links throughout the web to doctrine's documentation have all been broken. This includes a large number of links from blogs and from stackoverflow.

Example:
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/en/latest/reference/advanced-configuration.html

The issue appears to be a re-organization that moved that resource to:

http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/advanced-configuration.html

Instead of showing a "Page not found" error, that resource (and all other moved resources) should provide a 301 redirect response to the new url for that resource.

@jwage
Copy link
Member

jwage commented Oct 11, 2018

It is unfortunately not possible to do currently because we use a statically built website and github pages. It might be possible to build a map of redirect rules and do it in javascript though.

@shkkmo
Copy link
Author

shkkmo commented Oct 11, 2018 via email

@Majkl578
Copy link
Contributor

Would that work with HTML too? We generate HTML from RST manually and only publish final HTMLs on the GH Pages.

@shkkmo
Copy link
Author

shkkmo commented Oct 21, 2018

Yes. The article I linked talks about using a plugin for github page's default static build tool, Jekyll, that generates static pages that use the refresh meta tag as an inferior substitute for a 301 redirect.

I don't know the details of your build process, but having the ability to not break links to documentation seems pretty important.

@Majkl578
Copy link
Contributor

It's important to note that it also includes different subdomain, which may significantly complicate things.
It may be a lot easier to set up static redirects with NGINX for some period. I'll discuss that with @jwage if there is some sane way to get old -> new URL map to set it up.

@Majkl578 Majkl578 transferred this issue from doctrine/common Oct 31, 2018
@shkkmo
Copy link
Author

shkkmo commented Mar 24, 2019

I see this was never fixed. Due to issues like this, I have implemented a new policy of always archiving referenced documentation pages using web.archive.org/save/ and linking to the archived page.

However, this does not fix the numerous links that have been broken from sites like stackoverflow.

I see you moved the documentation yet again, now to a new sub domain. You do have redirects working there, but the older links, such as the example I posted, are all still broken and do not redirect properly.

@shkkmo
Copy link
Author

shkkmo commented Mar 24, 2019

Perhaps the scale of this issue is not understood? Just looking at the top doctrine tagged questions / answers on StackOverflow, they almost all have links to your documentation that have been broken. This seems like a rather significant issue to me.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/2062636
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3376881/default-value-in-doctrine
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2062473/php-orms-doctrine-vs-propel

@Ocramius
Copy link
Member

I can understand the Doctrine 2 issues, but the 1.2 docs surely aren't relevant anymore.

Anyway, having a report of links that got broken by the move by this (by generating the old website locally) would be more helpful. The understanding of why this is problematic is very clear.

Anyway:

I see this was never fixed.

We aren't paid to work on this: step up and jump in on this work, if it is something you care about.

@Ocramius
Copy link
Member

As for the implementation, <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=target-uri-here" /> plus <link rel="canonical" ... would be sufficient.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants