Repository navigation
Let the link exclusions expire when the repositories ship - #16
Merged
ChesterHsu merged 3 commits intoSep 8, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The external link check has been failing on seven links to flytohub/flyto-flow and flytohub/flyto-warroom. Both are private, so a reader following "Public CE source" or the git clone line in flow/community-edition-docker.md gets a 404 today. Deleting those pages would delete a plan that is only waiting on publication, and publication is a separate decision. Excluding the URLs is the right call for now and the wrong one permanently: the day the repositories go public, nothing checks those links again and nobody remembers the flag is there. So the exclusion carries its own expiry. check-unpublished-links.mjs reads config/unpublished-repos.json, asks GitHub whether each listed repository answers publicly, and fails when one does -- naming the --exclude to remove and the entry to delete. While they are private it says so and passes. It also fails if a repository is listed without a matching exclusion, so the list cannot drift away from the workflow. A GitHub outage or rate limit fails rather than reporting "now public", because guessing in either direction is worse than stopping. Verified both directions, not only the passing one: with the two real repositories it passes and names them as still private; with a public repository added to the list it fails and asks for the exclusion to be removed. Full npm run verify passes, including the documentation contract -- which caught that config/ had no documentation owner, so scripts/README.md now explains the mechanism rather than the manifest merely claiming it.
ChesterHsu
enabled auto-merge (squash)
September 8, 2026 03:15
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
CodeQL flagged the outbound request as depending on file data, and it is right that the shape is wrong even though this file is repository-controlled: owner and name were interpolated into a URL with nothing asserting they were repository names, so an edit could aim the request at another path or host. Owner and name must now match GitHub's own slug shape, the assembled URL is checked to still be an api.github.com /repos/ request, and redirects are refused rather than followed. The earlier check -- listed without a matching lychee exclusion -- already rejected every malformed entry before it reached the request, which is why probing through the config alone proved nothing about the new guard. Its inputs were exercised directly instead: the two real names and flyto-core accept; path traversal, a bare host, a fragment, an embedded slash, empty and space-padded names all reject.
The link check now passes the seven flyto-flow and flyto-warroom URLs, and fails on one this change created: reference/docs-code.md links every scanned file to blob/main, so the entry for a newly added script 404s until the pull request that adds it merges. That is structural -- 159 such links exist, and any pull request adding a file hits it. Excluding them from the external check is right, because no external check can judge a file that does not exist on main yet. Excluding them and leaving it there is not: a link naming a file that was renamed or deleted would then go unnoticed. So generate-code-reference.py --check now resolves every one of them against the working tree that produced it, failing on a missing file or a line number past the end. Verified by pointing one at a script that does not exist, which it reports by name. npm run verify passes.
ChesterHsu
deleted the
fix/let-the-link-exclusions-expire-when-the-repos-ship
branch
September 8, 2026 03:39
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Public link checkhas been failing on seven links toflytohub/flyto-flowandflytohub/flyto-warroom. Both are private, so a reader following "Public CE source" or thegit cloneline inflow/community-edition-docker.mdgets a 404 today.Deleting those pages would delete a plan that is only waiting on publication — and publication is a separate decision. Excluding the URLs is right for now and wrong permanently: the day the repositories go public, nothing checks those links again and nobody remembers the flag is there.
So the exclusion carries its own expiry
check-unpublished-links.mjsreadsconfig/unpublished-repos.json, asks GitHub whether each listed repository answers publicly, and fails when one does — naming the--excludeto remove and the entry to delete.It also fails if a repository is listed without a matching exclusion, so the list cannot drift away from the workflow. A GitHub outage or rate limit fails rather than reporting "now public" — guessing in either direction is worse than stopping.
Verified both directions
Not only the passing one. With the two real repositories it passes and names them as still private; with a public repository (
flytohub/flyto-core) temporarily added to the list it fails and asks for the exclusion to be removed.npm run verifypasses in full — and its documentation contract caught thatconfig/had no documentation owner, soscripts/README.mdnow explains the mechanism rather than the manifest merely claiming ownership of it.