topic Re: broken links on splunk web pages in Monitoring Splunk

broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:37:38 GMT

Dear Splunkers...

As i was checking about the fishbuckets at the splexicon

https://docs.splunk.com/Splexicon:Fishbucket

this page got a link - See the detailed Splunk blog topic

but that blog link is a broken link.

(PS - on Splunk docs, at lower page, there is a comment input box to give feedbacks, but on splexicon page, no feedbacks input box !)

many of us are aware of wiki.splunk links are broken too.

shouldn't splunk do something about these broken links? shouldn't splunk do splunking on its own.. suggestions pls.

have a great weekend, best regards

Sekar

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

marnall — Sun, 18 Aug 2024 08:16:57 GMT

Usually when you scroll to the bottom of the Splunk docs pages, there is a feedback form where you can submit feedback about broken links, items needing better explanation, etc.

Unfortunately this is not present in the Splexicon pages. Perhaps you can submit feedback on another docs page pointing out the broken links, with the explanation that there was no equivalent feedback form on the Splexicon.

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

PickleRick — Sun, 18 Aug 2024 09:30:22 GMT

You can try #docs channel on Slack

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:53:17 GMT

Sure, posted on Slack, thanks

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:06:54 GMT

Hi All, link removed, solving this, thanks 😉

thanks and best regards,
Sekar

PS - my karma stats - given 2400+ and received 400+, thanks for reading !

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Mon, 02 Dec 2024 08:55:29 GMT

Hi There, before solving this i thought to double check this one thru this idea:

1) I thought to write a small python script which will fetch all links from the Splexicon page

2) Verify the http return code (404 or 401 or .. ), so we can make sure that no more broken links will be there.

As i was working on this, i noticed the Splunk version hardcoded on the docs links:

1) for example, take this one - https://docs.splunk.com/Splexicon:Eventdata

this page got two more links under the "For more information"

In Getting Data In:

Overview of event processing
Assign the correct source types to your data

the clean links are:
https://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/9.3.2/Data/Overviewofeventprocessing
https://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/9.3.2/Data/Setsourcetype
when i was working on this last time, i remember that the links would have "latest"
now it is hard-coded as "9.3.2"
so, if Splunk releases 9.3.3, then, may i know if some Splunk Docs admin will manually edit/update these links, pls suggest, thanks.

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

PickleRick — Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:12:26 GMT

There is a fat chance that the links as well as the content itself aren't manually created but rather generated from some external tool. You might want to ask on Slack (on #docs or "the other channel" 😉 ) if there is someone having more insight on this

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:59:22 GMT

Sure @PickleRick just asked on #docs and waiting with fingers crossed 😉

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

andrewb_splunk — Fri, 06 Dec 2024 22:23:30 GMT

Thanks for the question. Those links are not hard coded to version 9.3.2. When a higher version of the Splunk Enterprise docs is made public, the links will point to that new highest ("latest") version of the topics with no manual intervention required by Splunk.

It's possible for us (intentionally or mistakenly) to hard code links to a specific version other than the "latest". If you ever see a link that points to an older version of documentation and you think it should point to "latest" feel free to let us know. You can use the docs channel in Slack or submit doc feedback on a related topic since there is no feedback form for Splexicon entries.

Re: broken links on splunk web pages

inventsekar — Sun, 08 Dec 2024 01:35:56 GMT

both @PickleRick and @andrewb_splunk given good details to this query. so i dont know which one to "accept as answer".. so i am accepting my own 😉 thanks.