Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
The site is available on that particular URL, so include it on the URL configuration.
This should fix the errors I get on the feed generation.
The feed itself does not validate, but this is kinda strange, because my feed reader accepts with weird post URLs.
The site is available on that particular URL, so include it on the URL configuration. This should fix the errors I get on the feed generation. https://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openttd.org%2Ffeed.xml The feed itself does not validate, but this is kinda strange, because my feed reader accepts with weird post URLs.
No, we currently don't have previews for Pull Requests. And it has little to do with GitHub Actions or GitLab CI. In both cases you have to configure that in order for it to work, and we haven't yet ;)
I will have to validate the effect of your change, but we have been busy releasing BaNaNaS v1.5, so this is a bit delayed. I expect I get around to do this no earlier than next weekend. Sorry about that delay.
Tnx for the reminder @LordAro ; kinda forgot about this Pull Request (SORRY!!).
The main issue we have: this Docker runs both staging as production. They have different URLs. So defining an URL here is a bit annoying, as that leads to faulty links (those that exist on staging but not on production, for example). Basically, the real URL is just a result of the infra; and this container should not care.
This is why
As you mention, readers accept the feed just fine; it is against specs, but it works fine. So I wonder if this is worth fixing (honest question). If we do, W3C will be happy, but staging will break. If we don't, all readers still accept the feed, just W3C will be unhappy.
To properly fix this, from what I can tell, is a bit of an annoying process: we would have to add a marker in
The main reason I created this was because my feed reader did not accept the feed without weird post URL. It's the relative URL that do it. I wouldn't open a PR just for strict standards adhesion
I checked the jekyll docs and it seems you can override the
I did however learned something new: Jekyll supports multiple configuration files:
So you could keep the current config file, and have two extra files:
And run it with
This is a low-priority thing, so feel free to just close this as "too much of a hassle".
Ah, sorry, I misread and thought it wasn't a real issue :D My bad!
Sadly, we have to change the URL on run-time, not on build-time. The container running on staging and production is the same (as otherwise you are not really testing anything on staging after all ;) ), so it cannot be some configuration in Jekyll.
Ideas are welcome, but I am tempted to do a
I see. The "supported" way is to do two builds, changing only the
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you are running
TrueBrain left a comment
It has been a while, but I was thinking this over again ..
Nobody should have the feed of staging in its reader. It is stupid. So this Pull Request is totally fine, even if the feed on staging points to production. So I am going to merge this PR :)
Sorry for the delay, and thank you for the PR!