Skip to content

Prepare for migration from /docs/latest to /latest #10324

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 24, 2025
Merged

Conversation

kolchfa-aws
Copy link
Collaborator

Prepare for migration from /docs/latest to /latest

Checklist

  • By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license and subject to the Developers Certificate of Origin.
    For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Copy link

Thank you for submitting your PR. The PR states are In progress (or Draft) -> Tech review -> Doc review -> Editorial review -> Merged.

Before you submit your PR for doc review, make sure the content is technically accurate. If you need help finding a tech reviewer, tag a maintainer.

When you're ready for doc review, tag the assignee of this PR. The doc reviewer may push edits to the PR directly or leave comments and editorial suggestions for you to address (let us know in a comment if you have a preference). The doc reviewer will arrange for an editorial review.

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>
@@ -191,10 +191,10 @@ class VersionSelector extends HTMLElement {

frag.querySelector('#selected').textContent = `${PREFIX}${this.getAttribute('selected')}`;

const pathName = location.pathname.replace(/\/docs(\/((latest|\d+\.\d+)\/?)?)?/, '');
const pathName = location.pathname.replace(/\/(docs)?(\/((latest|\d+\.\d+)\/?)?)?/, '');
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@peterzhuamazon Could you verify that this change is correct for the version selector to work for both old and new versions? Should we do it like this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can keep this for now, with or without docs it will strip, my only concern is it will strip if there is another /<number.number>/ in other part of the url string which will get stripped as well.

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>
@peterzhuamazon
Copy link
Member

Keep this until the next Thursday for deployment.

@peterzhuamazon peterzhuamazon marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2025 18:03
@peterzhuamazon peterzhuamazon merged commit 6f86f2b into main Jul 24, 2025
8 checks passed
@peterzhuamazon peterzhuamazon deleted the docs-update branch July 24, 2025 18:27
opensearch-trigger-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2025
* Prepare for migration from /docs/latest to /latest

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>

* Fix hardcoded link

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>

* Fix links

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>

* One more link fix

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>

* Update spec-insert to resolve the checks error

Signed-off-by: Peter Zhu <[email protected]>

---------

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zhu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Peter Zhu <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 6f86f2b)
Signed-off-by: github-actions[bot] <github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
peterzhuamazon added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2025
* Prepare for migration from /docs/latest to /latest



* Fix hardcoded link



* Fix links



* One more link fix



* Update spec-insert to resolve the checks error



---------




(cherry picked from commit 6f86f2b)

Signed-off-by: Fanit Kolchina <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zhu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: github-actions[bot] <github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Peter Zhu <[email protected]>
@opensearch-trigger-bot
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 3.0 failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-3.0 3.0
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-3.0
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-10324-to-3.0
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 6f86f2b9b6a34af90ccdc6e0d25df0d16c5caddc
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-10324-to-3.0
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-3.0

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 3.0 and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-10324-to-3.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants