Closed kerim closed 1 year ago
Glad to hear it's helped clear up errors.
Is this something I should be concerned about?
I don't think you need to be concerned. It depends on if you value those particular validations. For assets-exist-and-are-used
, it means your graph has links to nonexistent assets and/or that you have unused assets in your assets folder that are unused. For tags-and-page-refs-have-pages
, it means that you have tags and page-refs that aren't defined. This validation is useful for public and/or personal wikipedia graphs where you want every one of those concepts defined
Will it matter at all for graph performance
Performance difference for this is negligible
Thanks to your help and this CLI script, I've been able to clean up a lot of errors in my graph, however, the length of errors for the following two tests makes it seem impossible to fix manually. Is this something I should be concerned about? The two troublesome tests are:
assets-exist-and-are-used tags-and-page-refs-have-pages
Will it matter at all for graph performance if I leave these as-is without addressing the issues? Or perhaps there are scripts that could help clean these up automatically?