Add GitHub Action to Check for Dead Links in Documentation

[Khushalsarode]

Contributor checklist

• This pull request is on a separate branch and not the main branch
• I have tested my code with the pytest command as directed in the testing section of the contributing guide

---

Description

• Installs the necessary dependencies from requirements.txt
• Runs the Sphinx linkcheck builder to identify broken links.
• The results are displayed, and if broken links are found, the action will fail.

Related issue

• Add GitHub Action to Check for Dead Links in Documentation #419

[github-actions]

Thank you for the pull request!

The Scribe team will do our best to address your contribution as soon as we can. The following is a checklist for maintainers to make sure this process goes as well as possible. Feel free to address the points below yourself in further commits if you realize that actions are needed :)

If you're not already a member of our public Matrix community, please consider joining! We'd suggest using Element as your Matrix client, and definitely join the General and Data rooms once you're in. Also consider joining our bi-weekly Saturday dev syncs. It'd be great to have you!

Maintainer checklist

• The linting and formatting workflow within the PR checks do not indicate new errors in the files changed

• The CHANGELOG has been updated with a description of the changes for the upcoming release and the corresponding issue (if necessary)

[andrewtavis]

I wondering why the workflow didn't run on this, @Khushalsarode 🤔

[Khushalsarode]

I wondering why the workflow didn't run on this, @Khushalsarode 🤔

I was thinking the same.

[andrewtavis]

Can you take a look at this and edit the on to be like:

on:
  push:
    branches: [main]
  pull_request:
    branches: [main]
    types: [opened, reopened, synchronize]

Then from there we can look into why it's not running :)

[Khushalsarode]

Sure

[Khushalsarode]

Can you take a look at this and edit the on to be like:

on:
  push:
    branches: [main]
  pull_request:
    branches: [main]
    types: [opened, reopened, synchronize]

Then from there we can look into why it's not running :)

Thanks for suggestion and help!
I did run but failed build with error and warnings!
can there be problem at docs side?
@andrewtavis

[andrewtavis]

Ok so this is generally ok, @Khushalsarode, but then the error output from the check is kind of messy 🤔 Can you see if there's a way to clean it up a bit? Maybe capture the output and return only the broken links? The thing is that it's hard to find them throughout the entire output that also includes the ones that aren't broken.

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis ok? It's running and showing as you asked!

[andrewtavis]

Ideally at the end of this @Khushalsarode what we'd get is only those items that are broken because of Not Found for url, and then from there the workflow would fail as well. Can you make those adjustments, and maybe we can also do this for the markdown files as well, not just the docs?

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis

• it will show only link broken because of Not Found for url and if found it will exit and mark it as fail flow.
  OK?

[Khushalsarode]

Ideally at the end of this @Khushalsarode what we'd get is only those items that are broken because of Not Found for url, and then from there the workflow would fail as well. Can you make those adjustments, and maybe we can also do this for the markdown files as well, not just the docs?

if you would like shall I work on workflow for checking markdown files links.

[andrewtavis]

Hey @Khushalsarode 👋 I still see the whole error output at this link that includes links that are ok as well as the ones we want to see. Ideally it would only be the broken links and no others so it's easy for us to maintain.

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis
What I get is

• only want output containing broken links and broken due to url not found
• other than this like ok,redirecting should not to be shown as output
  Correct?

[andrewtavis]

Exactly, @Khushalsarode :)

[andrewtavis]

And something similar for markdown files :)

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis
is it what we expected?

[andrewtavis]

Yes this is great, @Khushalsarode :) Do you want to add in a check for the Markdown files as well? There should be a GitHub action that you can use for this 😊

[Khushalsarode]

Yes this is great, @Khushalsarode :) Do you want to add in a check for the Markdown files as well? There should be a GitHub action that you can use for this 😊

@andrewtavis
Yes! was waiting for your reponse!
do you want me to create new issue for this or continue ?

[andrewtavis]

You can continue in here, @Khushalsarode :)

[Khushalsarode]

Ok, I will do it!

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis
#499 for markdown files link check workflow

[andrewtavis]

I'll check these out soon, @Khushalsarode :) Thanks for them!

[andrewtavis]

Can you take a quick look at why it's failing now, @Khushalsarode? All I did was remove some comments and now the check isn't being ran properly 🤔

[andrewtavis]

An idea on this, @Khushalsarode: Could you maybe make a Python check script that we could also run locally? Bring in all of the URLs that are in the project even and see if the link is valid via Python requests, and then from there we'll do the check for the docs and the markdown in one go? And to boot we could check it locally and not trail and error the PR tests?

What I'm thinking:

• Get all files that are live under /docs (not /docs/build) and /src
• Convert the file contents to strings
• Use regex to get all the links
• Use requests to check the response for each of the links
• Update a dictionary with the file path and a link if it's broken
• Display the file path and link to the user if it's a bad response

How does this sound? :)

[Khushalsarode]

An idea on this, @Khushalsarode: Could you maybe make a Python check script that we could also run locally? Bring in all of the URLs that are in the project even and see if the link is valid via Python requests, and then from there we'll do the check for the docs and the markdown in one go? And to boot we could check it locally and not trail and error the PR tests?

What I'm thinking:

• Get all files that are live under /docs (not /src/build) and /src
• Convert the file contents to strings
• Use regex to get all the links
• Use requests to check the response for each of the links
• Update a dictionary with the file path and a link if it's broken
• Display the file path and link to the user if it's a bad response

How does this sound? :)

i will check this one also and will work on your suggestion too!

[Khushalsarode]

Don't know what happen to flow suddenly it was running file and script is same but now it's throwing error.
I will work again on this one and will do the one like suggested too

[Khushalsarode]

An idea on this, @Khushalsarode: Could you maybe make a Python check script that we could also run locally? Bring in all of the URLs that are in the project even and see if the link is valid via Python requests, and then from there we'll do the check for the docs and the markdown in one go? And to boot we could check it locally and not trail and error the PR tests?

What I'm thinking:

• Get all files that are live under /docs (not /src/build) and /src
• Convert the file contents to strings
• Use regex to get all the links
• Use requests to check the response for each of the links
• Update a dictionary with the file path and a link if it's broken
• Display the file path and link to the user if it's a bad response

How does this sound? :)

Sure @andrewtavis that's also an good valid approach compared workflow!
I will make sure to address this issue soon!
Thanks you!
Also I will try to figure out why this flow is going Rouge to us! 😅🤣

[andrewtavis]

Ultimately once this is done, we'll just run the workflow as the others are ran, @Khushalsarode, so it won't be as much of a problem :)

[Khushalsarode]

@andrewtavis no issue leave this to me! I have got clearly how we are planning to implement this.

[andrewtavis]

Note @Khushalsarode that there was a typo: we don't want urls in /docs/build included :) I'd written /src/build.

[Khushalsarode]

Note @Khushalsarode that there was a typo: we don't want urls in /docs/build included :) I'd written /src/build.

ok, we want to check all the links under src/ and docs/ folder? correct?
@andrewtavis

[andrewtavis]

Yes, except not under /docs/build :)