Skip to content

Docs: resolve the changelog's links from the repository root - #46

Merged
jtravs merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/changelog-links
Nov 4, 2026
Merged

jtravs merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/changelog-links

Conversation

@jtravs

@jtravs jtravs commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Fixes the docs failure on the rolling release PR #42, build 35655341:

CHANGELOG.md:14: WARNING: 'myst' cross-reference target not found: 'docs/developers/releasing.md'

What changed

  • docs/changelog.md includes the changelog with :relative-docs: docs/, as solprop's does. I missed this when porting the fragment workflow in Collect release notes from fragments in a rolling draft pull request #38.
  • tests/test_release_metadata.py checks that links in CHANGELOG.md and in fragments point to a real page under docs/, so a bad one fails on the PR that adds it rather than at release.
  • changelog.d/README.md states the rule, and there's a fragment for the fix.

Why it wasn't seen earlier

A fragment reaches the manual only when the release PR collects it, and every earlier #42 build was killed or cancelled before finishing (#40). Left alone, it would have failed poe check at the next release.

Verification

  • With the fragments collected in a scratch copy: the build fails without the line, as on Prepare the next release notes #42, and passes with it. The link renders as developers/releasing.html.
  • A probe fragment linking REGISTER.md fails the new test.
  • uv run poe check passed, with 21540 passed, 1 skipped and 100% coverage. The public-wording scan shows no new hits.
  • After this merges, the release-notes workflow refreshes Prepare the next release notes #42, and its Read the Docs build is the end-to-end check.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The manual includes CHANGELOG.md from docs/changelog.md without saying where
its links start, so the first fragment to link a page failed the documentation
build on the rolling release pull request, and would have failed the release.
A test now checks fragments' links, so a bad one fails on the pull request that
adds it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@jtravs jtravs added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation priority: medium Real work that should not wait long labels Nov 4, 2026
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings November 4, 2026 22:41

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota. Try requesting a review at a lower effort level.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 4, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-04T22:42:31.591608Z 0533beb PR opened
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-04T22:43:43.468409Z 0533beb PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@jtravs
jtravs merged commit 3cac834 into main Nov 4, 2026
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation priority: medium Real work that should not wait long

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants