Skip to content

docs: exclude 16 recurring broken Lightning doc links from linkcheck - #16222

Open
VaggelisGian wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA-NeMo:mainfrom
VaggelisGian:docs-linkcheck-lightning-anchors
Open

docs: exclude 16 recurring broken Lightning doc links from linkcheck#16222
VaggelisGian wants to merge 1 commit into
NVIDIA-NeMo:mainfrom
VaggelisGian:docs-linkcheck-lightning-anchors

Conversation

@VaggelisGian

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do ?

Makes the release docs linkcheck pass again by excluding 16 external PyTorch Lightning URLs whose anchors no longer resolve, and fixes the filename of the needs-review exclusion list so its entries actually apply.

Background: the release / finalize / build-docs / Build docs job has been failing on the same 16 links on many PRs. The lightning.ai optional-api pages return HTTP 200 but do not contain the anchor ids that Lightning's own intersphinx inventory advertises (the pages are verified live), and the readthedocs.io mirrors carry stale anchors after the docs restructure. The pages load fine for readers, so the links stay in the docs and the entries are recorded as checker false positives, matching the existing anchor-not-found entries in the same file.

This change was first proposed inside #16132 and reverted there per review, reworked here as the standalone contribution it was offered to be.

Collection: common (documentation)

Changelog

  • Add 16 broken-link entries for the Lightning docs URLs to docs/source/broken_links_false_positives.json.
  • Rename docs/source/broken_links_needing_review..json to broken_links_needing_review.json. The CI linkcheck step only reads the single-dot filename, so the two entries in the double-dot file were never applied.

Usage

No user-facing behavior change. After this lands, the Build docs job stops failing on these 16 links, and release-summary (which counts failed jobs) stops failing with it.

GitHub Actions CI

For an untrusted PR, a maintainer can trigger CI by commenting /ok to test <head-sha>.

Before your PR is "Ready for review"

Pre checks:

  • Make sure you read and followed Contributor guidelines
  • No new tests needed: data-only change to linkcheck exclusion lists
  • No documentation change needed beyond the exclusion data itself
  • Does the PR affect components that are optional to install? (Ex: Numba, Pynini, Apex etc)
    • No: JSON data and a file rename only

Checks run locally: JSON stream validation of both exclusion files (46 false-positive entries, 2 needing-review entries), and confirmation that all 16 URIs from the failing CI run are covered by the lists. Commits carry DCO sign-off.

The release docs linkcheck fails on 16 external PyTorch Lightning URLs
whose anchors no longer resolve: the lightning.ai optional-api pages
serve their content without the anchor ids that its own intersphinx
inventory advertises, and the readthedocs.io mirrors carry stale
anchors. The pages themselves load, so the links are useful to readers
but unverifiable by the checker.

Add all 16 entries to broken_links_false_positives.json, following the
existing entries for anchor-not-found cases.

Also rename broken_links_needing_review..json to
broken_links_needing_review.json: the CI linkcheck step only reads the
single-dot filename, so the two entries in the double-dot file were
never applied.

Signed-off-by: Vaggelis <baggelis100@gmail.com>
@copy-pr-bot

copy-pr-bot Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request requires additional validation before any workflows can run on NVIDIA's runners.

Pull request vetters can view their responsibilities here.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

@svcnvidia-nemo-ci svcnvidia-nemo-ci added the waiting-on-maintainers Waiting on maintainers to respond label Sep 9, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

community-request waiting-on-maintainers Waiting on maintainers to respond

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants