Add new opt-in common test for markdown link linting

[johlju]

• Add new opt-in common test for markdown link linting (issue Add spellcheck and URI link validation on Markdown files in tests #211).

This partly resolves the issue #211.

---

This change is 

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #273 into dev will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@         Coverage Diff         @@
##            dev   #273   +/-   ##
===================================
  Coverage    73%    73%           
===================================
  Files        12     12           
  Lines      1543   1543           
  Branches      2      2           
===================================
  Hits       1129   1129           
  Misses      412    412           
  Partials      2      2

[johlju]

Tested OK here:
CertificateDsc (opt-out): https://ci.appveyor.com/project/johlju/certificatedsc/build/2.3.24.0#L458
CertificateDsc (opt-is and passing): https://ci.appveyor.com/project/johlju/certificatedsc/build/2.3.25.0#L458
SqlServerDsc (opt-in and failing): https://ci.appveyor.com/project/johlju/sqlserverdsc/build/9.0.575.0?fullLog=true#L1758

[johlju]

@PlagueHO Another one to review if you have time. No hurry. 🙂

[johlju]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion

---

README.md, line 247 at r2 (raw file):

* **Common Tests - Custom Script Analyzer Rules**: fail tests if any
  custom script analyzer rules are violated.
* **Common Tests - Validate Markdown Links**: fails tests if a link in

This common test should be documented a bit more, for example using absolute paths might not always work.
E.g if having a \Examples\README.md that contaon an absolute link /Examples/Resources/SqlAG will fail, but a relative link Resources/SqlAG will pass (issue vors/MarkdownLinkCheck#5).

[PlagueHO]

Awesome stuff - can't wait to opt-in to this one too. Just some minor bits.

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 8 unresolved discussions (waiting on @PlagueHO and @johlju)

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1013 at r3 (raw file):

                if (-not (Get-Module -Name $dependencyModuleName -ListAvailable))
                {
                    # Remember that we installed the module, so it get uninstalled.

so it get -> so that it gets

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1025 at r3 (raw file):

    $markdownFileExtensions = @('.md')

    $markdownFiles = (Get-TextFilesList $moduleRootFilePath) |

Do we need braces ( ) around this?

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1026 at r3 (raw file):

    $markdownFiles = (Get-TextFilesList $moduleRootFilePath) |
        Where-Object { $markdownFileExtensions -contains $_.Extension }

Should be named parameter -FilterScript and could we also put script block on next line?

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1041 at r3 (raw file):

                # Make sure it always returns an array even if Get-MarkdownLink returns $null.
                $brokenLinks = @(Get-MarkdownLink @getMarkdownLinkParameters)
                if ($brokenLinks.Count -gt 0)

Can you add a blank line above the if statement?

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1063 at r3 (raw file):

                    Remove-Module -Name $dependencyModuleName -Force

                    Remove-Item -Path "$HOME\Documents\WindowsPowerShell\Modules\$dependencyModuleName" -Recurse -Force

Why not use Uninstall-Module here?

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1066 at r3 (raw file):

                    if ((Get-Module -Name $dependencyModuleName -ListAvailable))
                    {
                        throw 'Dependency module was not uninstall correctly.'

uninstall -> uninstalled

---

README.md, line 247 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, johlju (Johan Ljunggren) wrote…

This common test should be documented a bit more, for example using absolute paths might not always work.
E.g if having a \Examples\README.md that contaon an absolute link /Examples/Resources/SqlAG will fail, but a relative link Resources/SqlAG will pass (issue vors/MarkdownLinkCheck#5).

Do we want to add some documentation into the DSCResources StyleGuidelines.md/BestPractices.md to specify how paths should be formatted?

---

README.md, line 292 at r3 (raw file):

  custom script analyzer rules are violated.
- **Common Tests - Validate Markdown Links**: fails tests if a link in
  a markdown file are broken.

are -> is

[johlju]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 8 unresolved discussions (waiting on @PlagueHO and @johlju)

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1013 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

so it get -> so that it gets

Done.

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1025 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

Do we need braces ( ) around this?

Done. Nope, must have done more inside them and the refactored and forgot the parenthesis. :)

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1026 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

Should be named parameter -FilterScript and could we also put script block on next line?

Done.

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1041 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

Can you add a blank line above the if statement?

Done.

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1063 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

Why not use Uninstall-Module here?

Done. Well, embarrassing... I didn't know that cmdlet existed. 😅

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1066 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

uninstall -> uninstalled

Done. The code was refactored per previous comment.

---

README.md, line 247 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

Do we want to add some documentation into the DSCResources StyleGuidelines.md/BestPractices.md to specify how paths should be formatted?

It's a bug I think, since it is a valid path, the linter just did not recognize it. So any valid markdown path should work, not sure we should duplicate that documentation? I added a note about it in the README.md here for now. Is it good enough you think?
Bit I'm open to add a section to the bestpractices.md too.

We should add short explainations like this for the other common tests too I think. Started with one of other tests in a PR (the "spelling" one).

---

README.md, line 292 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

are -> is

Done.

[PlagueHO]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @johlju)

---

Meta.Tests.ps1, line 1063 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, johlju (Johan Ljunggren) wrote…

Done. Well, embarrassing... I didn't know that cmdlet existed. 😅

Too many cmdlets to know them all! 😁

---

README.md, line 247 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, johlju (Johan Ljunggren) wrote…

It's a bug I think, since it is a valid path, the linter just did not recognize it. So any valid markdown path should work, not sure we should duplicate that documentation? I added a note about it in the README.md here for now. Is it good enough you think?
Bit I'm open to add a section to the bestpractices.md too.

We should add short explainations like this for the other common tests too I think. Started with one of other tests in a PR (the "spelling" one).

Agreed - better to not duplicate and I think adding the section to the README.MD here is great!

---

README.md, line 300 at r4 (raw file):

will pass the linter.

>**NOTE!** There are currently a bug in the markdown link linter that makes it

There are currently -> this is currently

---

README.md, line 301 at r4 (raw file):

>**NOTE!** There are currently a bug in the markdown link linter that makes it
>unable to recognized absolute paths where the absolute link starts in a parent

recognized -> recognize

---

README.md, line 303 at r4 (raw file):

>unable to recognized absolute paths where the absolute link starts in a parent
>folder.
>For example, if having a markdown file in `/Examples/README.md`,

My read better as: For example, if a markdown file /Example/README.md contains an absolute link pointing to...

[johlju]

Got them all now I hope. 😃

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @PlagueHO)

---

README.md, line 300 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

There are currently -> this is currently

Done.

---

README.md, line 301 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

recognized -> recognize

Done.

---

README.md, line 303 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, PlagueHO (Daniel Scott-Raynsford) wrote…

My read better as: For example, if a markdown file /Example/README.md contains an absolute link pointing to...

Done.

[PlagueHO]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r5.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[johlju]

@PlagueHO Thank you! Awesome reviews as usually! 😃