Fix Moxie URL in build.xml (#1441)

[glmdev]

Looks like the GitHub org name changed at some point, and the Moxie URL in build.xml needs to be updated.

1441

[Uzume]

Apparently there are a bunch of hard coded paths containing gitblit.github.com that should be updated to gitblit-org.github.io (or even better yet just use site relative URLs) in the gh-pages branch of gitblit-org/moxie. And at the same time it would be good to update github.com/gitblit/ to github.com/gitblit-org/. Not to mention this same problem all over gitblit-org repos (including other places in this repo besides just build.xml).

[flaix]

@Uzume , can you tell me where you see this problem in this repo besides build.xml? Or did you mean that in connection with Moxie? Because for this repo it should all have been adjusted already. I'm not sure I understand which places you refer to.

[Uzume]

@flaix: I was referring to the gh-pages branch of gitblit-org/moxie (which results in broken links for https://gitblit-org.github.io/moxie/), however, there are more references in his repo too. Is it really that hard to do code searches? Although I recommend you do a local file search of all the files you get during branch checkouts, GitHub kindly provides these online possibilities:

• repo:gitblit-org/gitblit ("gitblit.github" OR "github.com/gitblit/") 5 files in Code
• repo:gitblit-org/moxie ("gitblit.github" OR "github.com/gitblit/") 9 files in Code

And of course you can search all the gitblit-org repos (finding even more such issues) with:

• org:gitblit-org ("gitblit.github" OR "github.com/gitblit/") 69 files in Code

Including similar broken links in these repos as well (as the two repos listed above):

• gitblit-cookbook-plugin
• gitblit-docker
• gitblit-flowdock-plugin
• gitblit-glip-plugin
• gitblit-hipchat-plugin
• gitblit-javamelody-plugin
• gitblit-maven
• gitblit-powertools-plugin
• gitblit-slack-plugin
• gitblit-smartticketbranches-plugin
• gitblit-tbacl-plugin

I am not sure if the GitHub searches search the heads of all branches or not but that should provide you a start to the link problems being discussed.

Does that help? I really hope someone cares enough to fix those 69 files across the 13 repos.

[flaix]

Uzume, thank you for trying to help. Apparently I am too daft, because the search links you provided above result in zero hits when I click on them.

Anyhows, I thought you had found links within this repository pointing to the gitblit project itself. But I was not able to find any of those. So I guess you were talking about links to other repositories.

Which is true, the change of the group for all other gitblit repositories has not been accounted for so far.

[Uzume]

Uzume, thank you for trying to help. Apparently I am too daft, because the search links you provided above result in zero hits when I click on them.

Anyhows, I thought you had found links within this repository pointing to the gitblit project itself. But I was not able to find any of those. So I guess you were talking about links to other repositories.

Which is true, the change of the group for all other gitblit repositories has not been accounted for so far.

@flaix: No, it is probably not you but me. I have several GitHub "Feature preview"s turned on (including I suspect New Code Search and Code View). Try these links instead:

• "gitblit.github"
• "github.com/gitblit/gitblit"

I am sorry about that. I made sure those work without being logged in. I am not sure how to port some of the more advanced searches to the older search API but that should get you basically the same hits in this repo anyway.

You really should search the code in the branches you checkout though and not rely on the online searches.

I am showing changes needed in the following:

• README.markdown
• src/main/java/com/gitblit/manager/PluginManager.java
• src/test/java/com/gitblit/tests/StringUtilsTest.java
• .github/workflows/ci-build.yml

In addition to build.xml.

[flaix]

Ah! That explains it, thank you. I considered turning the beta on, but didn't. Turns out that makes the difference.

Anyhow, I do grep my local files. And yes, none of the links between different repos are adjusted. I just thought that you had seen a link within the gitblit repo to itself that I may have missed.

[Uzume]

Anyhow, I do grep my local files. And yes, none of the links between different repos are adjusted. I just thought that you had seen a link within the gitblit repo to itself that I may have missed.

@flaix: Well even the changes proposed in this PR are not about self referential links but local build.xml links to moxie.

The only self referential links in this repo that need fixed are in src/test/java/com/gitblit/tests/StringUtilsTest.java.

However, there are broken links in this repo to several things including:

• http://gitblit.github.io/moxie/settings.html
• http://gitblit.github.io/gitblit-registry/plugins.json
• http://gitblit.github.io/moxie
• http://gitblit.github.io/moxie/maven
• http://gitblit.github.io/moxie/maven/com/gitblit/moxie/moxie+ant/0.9.4/moxie+ant-0.9.4.tar.gz

These are all "404" links found in this repo to places defined by repos in this org but not defined by this repo, i.e., org self-referential but not repo self-referential.

[flaix]

Yes, those I am aware of. I was thrown off by your "including other places in this repo besides just build.xml". I misunderstood that for links within gitblit repo to itself. Sorry to have caused confusion.

[Uzume]

Yes, those I am aware of. I was thrown off by your "including other places in this repo besides just build.xml". I misunderstood that for links within gitblit repo to itself. Sorry to have caused confusion.

@flaix: No, problem, but this PR was never about any repo self-referential link issues (though there is the one bunch at the bottom of StringUtilsTest.java).

So should I just spam PRs to all 13 repos with link updates? I am not planning on attempting to test anything (but in theory they should be better not worse off)?

[flaix]

So should I just spam PRs to all 13 repos with link updates? I am not planning on attempting to test anything (but in theory they should be better not worse off)?

No, thank you for the offer, but I don't think that is necessary.

But thank you for your comment anyways, I learned something new about Github's new code search.

[Uzume]

But thank you for your comment anyways, I learned something new about Github's new code search.

@flaix: Yes, I did too. I had gotten used to the new search features without thinking about things. I did notice that if I have that turned on (as I do for my account), when I click links for the older search interfaces, it translates the older search to the new search interface. Overall, I really like the new search.

I cannot say I am as thrilled with the new code view that is part of the same package. You can minimize the new sidebars on the left and right (in some contexts) that default to open when you first turn it on. However it also adds indexed linking in code views (which can sometimes be irritating when trying to copy snippets and it instead jumps to definitions or other uses). It also seems to try and take over "Ctrl-F" for searching within the code view and unfortunately Firefox (which I am using) also uses that for search within the page (so I have to use menus for that now instead).

[flaix]

Thank you, Garrett!

[Uzume]

@glmdev, @flaix: Nice work, however I notice this still shows a hits in this repo:

• "github.com/gitblit/gitblit"

[flaix]

@Uzume , yes, I didn't bother because that is just a unit test operation on the string. It doesn't matter what the URL actually is, it is not retrieved.