jfmengels/elm-review-documentation

Don't report links in code blocks

Open

#20 opened on Feb 16, 2024

View on GitHub
 (1 comment) (0 reactions) (0 assignees)Elm (2 forks)github user discovery
bughelp wanted

Repository metrics

Stars
 (8 stars)
PR merge metrics
 (No merged PRs in 30d)

Description

Applies to

If you include a link to a code example:
```elm
module A exposing (A)
{-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
-}
import B
```

it triggers both rules

Docs.ReviewLinksAndSections: Link points to non-existing module Expression

202|     module A exposing (A)
203|     {-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
                           ^^^
204|     -}

This is a dead link.
Docs.UpToDateReadmeLinks: Found relative link to a module in README

202|     module A exposing (A)
203|     {-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
                           ^^^
204|     -}

Relative links to other modules from the README don't work when looking at the
docs from GitHub or the likes.

I suggest to run elm-review --fix to change the link to an absolute link.

which is not correct because these are not real links that are rendered as such, they are code.

Treat this as a very low prio as checking for it is a bit of work and should only be quite rare in practice.

For implementation we could for example remove all sections from starting-spaced ``` until the next spaced ``` before checking.

Contributor guide