Repository navigation
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟡 Changes recommended
The newly referenced profile namespace is not imported, causing documentation rendering to fail.
Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1
Open (1)
What changed in this PR
Updates the X.509 documentation link for downstream product builds.
Changes:
- Uses profile-specific anchors for community and product documentation.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
docs/guides/server/mutual-tls.adoc |
Selects the appropriate X.509 anchor by build profile. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
|
@ASchwart Let me know if you know a better way to handle the underscores disappearing in downstream. However, I understand it may require more time than you have for this release. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
The targeted documentation change correctly resolves the downstream link without affecting the community link.
0 open findings
< BD0 p dir="auto">🧠 Review effort: BalancedGive feedback about Copilot approvals in this survey to enter a drawing for a $150 gift card.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@andymunro Just one thing, as it seems to be a wider problem.
| :adminguide_name: Server Administration Guide | ||
| :adminguide_name_short: Server Administration | ||
| :adminguide_link: {project_doc_base_url}/server_admin/ | ||
| :adminguide_x509: {adminguide_link}#_x509 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think the X.509 section should have the separate attribute record as it's not any special. We should have the same problem with the _vault-key-resolvers, and _client_policies IDs, as they also use the underscore as a prefix.
So for now, I'd suggest using the auxiliary anchor (if feasible) to support both and be able to backport it:
[[x509]]
=== [[_x509]]X.509 client certificate user authentication
For the main, it'd be good to restrict using the anchors with an underscore prefix -> so, we'd need to find all references in guides + add some compile checks for the docs. Should be handled in a follow-up issue.
@andymunro WDYT? Could you please also fix the other references?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have not used Auxillary anchors before, but I can see how it works. @ahus1 do you agree with this idea? In the next release, downstream will be in a completely separate repository. So I would not invest a lot of time with this issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Considering we're using the :adminguide_vault: {adminguide_link}#_vault-key-resolvers already in the attributes, I'm ok to go with this change (and maybe also add the attribute for the _client_policies).
And for the Keycloak 27, we can provide some better approach.
@andymunro WDYT? So, can you resolve the conflict?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I will defer to @ahus1 who has a lot more insight in what works best with this change.
Closes keycloak#53510 Signed-off-by: AndyMunro <amunro@redhat.com>
Closes #53562