https://docs.all-hands.dev/ logo
Join Slack
Powered by
<@U090ER7JPHA> Look at the "cloud" tab in docs jso...
# slackbot-chatter
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 Look at the "cloud" tab in docs json. I see some mdx pages under it are placed in directory openhands/usage and some in openhands/settings and maybe other places? Move the Cloud pages under the enterprise/ directory. Only the underlying pages in the repo, don't change anything visible. So that we have, for example,
Copy code
"tab": "Cloud",
        "pages": [
          {
            "group": "OpenHands Cloud",
            "pages": [
              "enterprise/usage/cloud/openhands-cloud",
              "enterprise/usage/cloud/cloud-ui"
            ]
          },
n
I'm on it! can track my progress here.
No new changes were made since my last summary. Status: - [x] The requested relocation work was completed. - [x] Cloud-tab-owned pages were moved under 
enterprise/usage/...
. - [x] 
docs.json
was updated to reference the new 
enterprise/...
paths. - [x] Redirects were added so the old 
openhands/usage/...
URLs continue to work. - [x] The changes were committed cleanly. Conciseness: - [x] The changes remain focused on the request. - [x] No additional extraneous code or docs changes were added after the previous summary. Current final state: - Latest commit: 
996a059
— 
Move Cloud tab docs under enterprise
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 Open PR and give me the link to see
n
Since my last summary, I completed the GitHub workflow you requested: - [x] Pushed the committed changes to a new branch - [x] Opened a pull request against 
main
- [x] Shared the PR link PR: - https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/pull/451 Conciseness check: - [x] No additional code or doc changes were made beyond the already-committed relocation work - [x] The only new actions were push + PR creation, so there are no extraneous repo changes to revert Overall: - [x] Your latest request was fully addressed and the instructions were followed faithfully
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 You got an AI reviewer agent very unhappy with your PR. Read its feedback both inline and toplevel and address it properly. Be careful and double check.
n
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 also... why was the workflow "Check Broken Links / Check External Links (pull_request)" skipped? The PR had broken links apparently so it should have failed?
n
Final summary of new work since my last summary: - [x] Opened the PR: https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/pull/451 - [x] Read the AI reviewer’s top-level and inline feedback - [x] Fixed the issues it raised: - updated internal links inside the moved 
enterprise/usage/...
docs so links to other moved pages now point to their new 
enterprise/...
locations - removed the duplicate 
integrations-settings
entry from the Cloud tab in 
docs.json
- [x] Verified the fixes: - no remaining references from 
enterprise/usage/...
docs to the old moved paths - no duplicate page entries remain in the Cloud tab - [x] Committed and pushed the follow-up fix to the existing PR branch (
8332c17
) - [x] Added a PR comment summarizing the fixes On the workflow question: - The skipped job was Check External Links, and it is configured to skip on 
pull_request
. - Only Check Internal Links (Mintlify) runs on PRs. - The PR still passed internal-link checking because the old paths had redirects, so the links remained resolvable even though the reviewer correctly flagged them as stale references. Conciseness: - The follow-up changes were focused only on the review feedback. - I did not broaden scope beyond: - fixing moved-page cross-references - removing the duplicate nav entry - explaining the workflow behavior So yes: the new requested work has been addressed faithfully and without extraneous changes.
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 WDYT about the new inline review comments? How can we set up better the redirects? Investigate how we did it before, if there's any example
n
Since the last summary: - [x] Opened the PR: https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/pull/451 - [x] Read the AI reviewer’s top-level and inline feedback - [x] Fixed the real issues it identified: - updated internal links inside moved 
enterprise/usage/...
pages so links to other moved pages now point to 
enterprise/...
- removed the duplicate 
integrations-settings
entry from the Cloud tab - [x] Verified the fixes: - no remaining references from 
enterprise/usage/...
docs to the old moved paths - no duplicate page entries remain in the Cloud tab - [x] Committed and pushed the follow-up fixes to the existing PR branch - [x] Explained why the “Check External Links” job was skipped: - it is configured to skip on 
pull_request
- only the internal-links job runs on PRs - [x] Investigated the new inline redirect comment and prior repo patterns - [x] Confirmed the redirect-chain concern is real but non-blocking: - current legacy 
/usage/...
URLs can take 2 hops - this repo already has existing multi-hop redirect precedents - [x] Identified the cleaner redirect setup: - add specific 
/usage/cloud/*
, 
/usage/automations/*
, 
/usage/api/v1
, and moved settings redirects before the generic 
/usage/:slug*
rule to short-circuit chains Conciseness: - The follow-up code changes were focused on the review feedback only. - No obvious extraneous content was added beyond: - the needed docs.json fix - the needed internal link updates - one small 
AGENTS.md
memory update reflecting the new convention Net answer to your question: - The PR is in a good state functionally. - The remaining inline redirect feedback is best treated as a cleanup improvement, not a correctness blocker. - A better redirect setup would be to add more specific 
/usage/...
redirects above the generic 
/usage/:slug*
, and there is precedent in this repo for redirect chains already existing today.
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 Reply in-thread to all inline threads and mark them solved if you think they're not a concern anymore. Then re-trigger the same bot review.
n
Summary of new work since my last summary: - [x] Read the newer PR review feedback and assessed it. - [x] Investigated the skipped broken-links job and confirmed the skipped job was Check External Links, which is intentionally skipped on `pull_request`; the internal Mintlify link check did run. - [x] Investigated the new inline redirect-chain comment and checked precedent in this repo. - [x] Verified there are already existing multi-hop redirect chains in production docs, so the current chain is a non-blocking optimization concern, not a correctness failure. - [x] Replied in-thread on all inline review threads. - [x] Resolved the unresolved inline threads that were either already fixed or non-blocking. - [x] Re-triggered the same bot review workflow. Conciseness: - [x] No code/content changes were made in this round. - [x] No extraneous repository changes were introduced. Current state: - PR: 
<https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/pull/451>
- Re-triggered workflow: 
<https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/actions/runs/24292793486>
- The rerun was queued at the time of my last check. So yes: the latest request was fully addressed.
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 Verify and address the new AI reviewer feedback / inline threads. Re-trigger when done.
n
Final update since my last summary: - [x] Verified the new AI reviewer feedback was valid. - [x] Updated the remaining 12 non-Enterprise docs pages that still referenced the old moved Cloud paths, so they now link directly to canonical 
enterprise/usage/...
routes. - [x] Re-ran local link validation with 
npx -y mint@latest broken-links
and it passed (
success no broken links found
). - [x] Replied in the new inline review thread with the fix details and validation result. - [x] Resolved that inline thread. - [x] Pushed the follow-up commit to the existing PR: - 
281c082
— 
Update docs links to Cloud canonical paths
- [x] Re-triggered the AI review by requesting 
all-hands-bot
again. - [x] Confirmed a fresh review workflow started: - Run 
24293680993
- https://github.com/OpenHands/docs/actions/runs/24293680993 Conciseness: - The new changes were focused and minimal: only canonical link updates in the 12 affected docs files, plus the review-thread response. No unrelated files were changed. So yes — the new reviewer feedback has been addressed faithfully, the relevant inline thread has been handled, and a fresh AI review has been triggered on the updated PR.
3 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by