Modify the workflow to not be blocked by old posts changed mails - #390
Modify the workflow to not be blocked by old posts changed mails#390mdubel wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the link-check GitHub Actions workflow so that CI only checks links in markdown/quarto files modified by the current pull request, preventing unrelated historical content (e.g., outdated author emails/links in old posts) from blocking new contributions.
Changes:
- Fetch full git history to enable reliable PR diffing for changed-file detection.
- Add a “changed files” step to scope link checking to only touched
.qmd/.mdfiles. - Remap changed
.qmdpaths to.mdafterswitch.Rrenames files, and run Lychee only when relevant files changed.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| - name: Get changed files | ||
| id: changed-files | ||
| uses: tj-actions/changed-files@v45 | ||
| with: | ||
| files: | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the link checker CI is so fast - like seconds to run feels like we should just fix the links imo
|
👀 Preview available! The preview website for this PR is available at: The preview is updated every time a new commit is pushed to this PR. |
bms63
left a comment
bms63
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh i think we should continuously check all the files to make sure the links still work...i did not know my old gsk address was in that post. it can just be removed.
|
Redirecting to @ashley-tarasiewicz and @aaehmann |
|
@bms63 my intention was to not modify the archived posts, so I decided to modify the CI. However, if the original intention was not to track who wrote a post (Ben from GSK), but rather to be able to contact the author with the current mail, then I can modify the email only. Clarifying this intention was why I brought @rossfarrugia to the discussion. |
|
@mdubel i'm not sure the original intention sorry. i wasn't part of the team that created this blog site. i would trust whatever Ashley and Alice prefer here |
|
It is my old email lol :) - I think the CICD link check should check that all the links are good over the whole site imo. Things go bad quick, but maybe we could just check back 12 months for links and leave everything else alone...cause who is going to read a post from 2023?? |
Keep checking all links across the repo (per maintainer preference) and handle the failing links via .lycheeignore: Ben Straub's GSK email plus the rate-limited Wikimedia asset and the timing-out SAS blog posts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
@bms63 I made it as simple as possible, to also keep your and GSK contribution. Just added your old email (as well as other flaky links) to the ignored checks. I see it is a used before approach. A little bit counter the idea of actually making sure that links work, but I guess we shouldn't work too much on the 2023 post. |
This PR fixes the issue with new blogposts being blocked by the mail changes in the historical posts.
See example: https://github.com/pharmaverse/blog/actions/runs/27440413131/job/81112836728?pr=389
Ben's email from the 2023 post is no longer active, and it makes CI red for the 2026 new post that is not touching the old content at all.