- Issue created by @Juanjol
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
juanjol β changed the visibility of the branch 1.x to hidden.
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
juanjol β changed the visibility of the branch 3531237-false-positives-for to hidden.
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
juanjol β changed the visibility of the branch 3531237-false-positives-for to active.
- Merge request !36Issue #3531237: Added base_path control on broken links inspection β (Open) created by Juanjol
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
I just realized I haven't added tests to the MR. I'm going to generate them and add them to the issue before it's reviewed.
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
juanjol β changed the visibility of the branch 3531237-false-positives-for to hidden.
- πͺπΈSpain lpeidro Madrid
Hello Juanjo,
Thank you for your contribution; it is really great.
However, I have some doubts regarding the point where you implemented the logic to remove the base path. Before checking the link with the "router.no_access_checks" service, we try to use other, more efficient methods to retrieve the link dataβfor example, by checking directly in the alias table.
Perhaps the correct place to remove the base path is when the path property is set in the Target object, specifically in the "processHrefAndSetComponents" method of the "Target" class.
This is just a question, as I am not sure what implications this change might have.
- πͺπΈSpain Juanjol Navarra
Hi lpeidro, I think the logic is in a much better place now, thanks for your suggestion! It's ready for another review.