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

Fix link checker for historical objects.inv files #857

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 21, 2024

Conversation

Eric-Arellano
Copy link
Collaborator

@Eric-Arellano Eric-Arellano commented Feb 20, 2024

The API checks didn't run in #850 because our GitHub Action didn't include public/api in its globs. So, we accidentally broke the link checker.

This PR adds the new mechanism of IGNORED_FILES. The objects.inv has way too many errors in 0.14 - 0.16 to be worth trying to fix or blocklist specific failures.

Finally, it removes ignores that are now stale thanks to #848.

Copy link
Collaborator

@arnaucasau arnaucasau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me! Thanks!

@Eric-Arellano Eric-Arellano added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 21, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 091884a Feb 21, 2024
4 checks passed
@Eric-Arellano Eric-Arellano deleted the EA/fix-link-checker branch February 21, 2024 14:04
frankharkins pushed a commit to frankharkins/documentation that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2024
The API checks didn't run in
Qiskit#850 because our GitHub
Action didn't include `public/api` in its globs. So, we accidentally
broke the link checker.

This PR adds the new mechanism of `IGNORED_FILES`. The `objects.inv` has
way too many errors in 0.14 - 0.16 to be worth trying to fix or
blocklist specific failures.

Finally, it removes ignores that are now stale thanks to
Qiskit#848.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants