docs: update redirect list

[Minh141120]

This pull request adds a large set of new redirect rules to the docs/_redirects file to improve documentation navigation and ensure legacy or alternative documentation URLs properly forward to their updated locations. The changes primarily focus on consolidating and standardizing documentation paths, especially for desktop, model, and server-related documentation.

---

Important

Updates docs/_redirects with new redirect rules to standardize and consolidate desktop, model, and server documentation paths.

• Redirects:
  • Adds new redirect rules in docs/_redirects for desktop, model, and server documentation.
  • Consolidates paths for /docs/desktop, /docs/models, and /docs/server to standardize navigation.
  • Ensures legacy URLs redirect to updated locations, improving documentation accessibility.

^{This description was created by for 39e3a02. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 39e3a02 in 1 minute and 43 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 59 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/_redirects:110

• Draft comment:
  The destination path in this line (and line 111) includes an extra '/desktop' (i.e. '/docs/desktop/desktop/data-folder'). Please verify the intended destination.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. docs/_redirects:55

• Draft comment:
  There is inconsistent whitespace (tabs vs. spaces) observed (e.g. line 55). Standardizing the formatting would improve maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about inconsistent whitespace, our rules say not to make purely informative comments or comments about minor formatting issues. This is a redirects configuration file where the exact whitespace doesn't impact functionality. The suggestion doesn't fix any actual problems. The inconsistent whitespace could make the file harder to maintain and edit in the future. Poor formatting can lead to real issues over time. While formatting consistency is good practice, this is a simple redirects file where the whitespace is purely cosmetic. The functionality is not impacted and the comment doesn't highlight a significant issue requiring immediate action. This comment should be removed as it's purely about formatting in a configuration file where the exact whitespace doesn't matter functionally.

3. docs/_redirects:1

• Draft comment:
  All redirects are set as 302 (temporary). If these routes are permanently moved, consider using 301 to improve SEO and caching behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. docs/_redirects:68

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The source path '/docs/desktop/docs/data-folder' appears to have a duplicated 'docs' segment. Should it be '/docs/desktop/data-folder'?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment points out a real issue - there is a duplicated 'docs' segment in the source path. However, this is a redirects file, where the whole point is to catch old/incorrect URLs and redirect them to the correct ones. The duplicated segment in the source URL may be intentional to catch malformed URLs that users might try to access. The destination URL is already correct. I might be wrong about whether this is intentional - perhaps the duplicated segment really is a mistake that should be fixed. The redirect could be simplified if it's truly not needed. In a redirects file, having "incorrect" source URLs is often intentional to catch user mistakes. The important part is that it redirects to the correct destination, which it does. The comment should be deleted because in a redirects file, the source URL format is less important than ensuring it properly redirects to the correct destination URL, which it does.

5. docs/_redirects:69

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The source route '/docs/desktop/docs/desktop/install/linux' seems to include an extra 'docs/desktop' segment. Consider revising it to '/docs/desktop/install/linux'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment correctly identifies a redundant path segment. However, this is a redirects file where both the source and destination paths are specified - the source path could be intentionally duplicated to catch malformed URLs. The destination is already correct at '/docs/desktop/install/linux'. The comment's suggestion would change the behavior of the redirects system. I might be wrong about the intention - perhaps the duplicate segment really is a mistake. But without knowing the URL structure of the site and intended redirect behavior, I can't be certain. Given that this is a redirects file specifically designed to handle various URL patterns, we should be conservative about changing source paths without understanding the full URL structure and redirect requirements. The comment should be removed since we can't be certain that the duplicate path segment is actually a mistake rather than an intentional catch-all redirect pattern.

6. docs/_redirects:75

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The source path '/docs/docs/data-folder' likely contains an erroneous duplicate 'docs'. It might be intended as '/docs/desktop/data-folder'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The presence of other URLs with duplicate 'docs' segments suggests this is an intentional pattern to handle legacy URLs that may exist in the wild. The purpose of a redirects file is precisely to handle such legacy URLs, even if they contain what appears to be mistakes. The suggestion would actually break the redirect for anyone using the original URL path. Maybe there's documentation or context somewhere that indicates these duplicate paths are actually mistakes that should be cleaned up? Maybe there's a broader cleanup effort happening? Even if there is a cleanup effort, this redirects file's purpose is to handle existing URLs. Changing the source path would break existing links, which is exactly what this file is trying to prevent. The comment should be deleted because it suggests changing a redirect source path that may be intentionally handling legacy URLs with duplicate segments.

7. docs/_redirects:76

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The source route '/docs/docs/desktop/linux' appears to have an extra 'docs' segment. Please check if this should be corrected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment points out a real issue - having '/docs/docs/' in a URL path is likely unintentional and could cause confusion. However, this is a redirects file, so even if the path is unusual, it might be intentionally set up this way to catch malformed URLs that users might try to access. Without knowing the full context of why these redirects exist, we can't be certain this is actually a mistake. I might be overthinking this - the doubled segment could be intentional to catch legacy URLs that were malformed. Also, changing URLs in a redirects file could break existing links. While the doubled segment could be intentional, having inconsistent URL structures is generally poor practice and could indicate a real issue that should be addressed. Since this is a redirects file where paths need to exactly match what users might enter, and we don't have context about whether this duplicate segment is intentional, we should not keep this comment.

8. docs/_redirects:77

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The source URL '/docs/docs/troubleshooting' seems to have an unnecessary duplicate 'docs'. Consider updating it accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is pointing out a real issue - there is a duplicate 'docs' segment in the URL. However, looking at the file, this appears to be intentional as there are multiple similar patterns (like '/docs/docs/data-folder' on line 75). These duplicate paths might exist to handle legacy URLs. The redirects file's purpose is specifically to handle such URL variations and redirect them to the canonical paths. The duplicate paths could be intentional to handle legacy URLs that were structured this way. Making this change could break existing links. Even if some URLs have duplicate segments, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the desired pattern. However, without understanding the historical context and URL structure requirements, changing this could cause issues. The comment should be deleted as the duplicate path segments appear to be intentional in this redirects file, and changing them could break existing URLs.

Workflow ID: wflow_pxS07arcqExuYHUB

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[github-actions]

Preview URL: https://b472a3e9.docs-9ba.pages.dev