-5

The latest version of an answer (that I created and Community last edited) is not displaying or editing right. Instead, a version that still has a dead URL in it* is displayed both on the main page for the Q, and when I try to edit that latest version of my A.

*I think it's the next-to-latest version, which was by me, of 25 May, with https://developer.apple.com/legacy/library/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man8/fsck_hfs.8.html still in it.

screen shot

It looks like the dead URL is removed per that screen shot above.

But here below we see the dead URL is still linked to: (Screen shot from How to check whether there is bad sector on an external USB hard disk on OS X?) shot shows bug

  • 3
    Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it's not displaying or editing right? How is it not displaying right? You say it still has a dead url but from the revision history it doesn't look like you ever removed it. I did notice that you put your "Update: Bloody hell..." right in front of the reference which caused it to break even though you didn't actually remove the link. Funnily enough the commonmark migration (the community edit), went ahead and added a newline which "fixed" the link. – Kodos Johnson Sep 2 at 22:13
  • I'm not saying I removed it. The community edit LOOKS LIKE it did. Except it didn't. Visit the question; you'll see the link is still there - at least I do! ... I'll add another screen shot... added one - that shows this. – Matthew Elvey Sep 2 at 22:36
  • 2
    If you select "side-by-side markdown" instead of "inline", you'll see the community user didn't edit the link, it just added a newline after your "Update: Bloody Hell.." which caused the display of the link to change. That's why it shows crossed off in your diff. It changed from a non-working link (with brackets) to a working link. – Kodos Johnson Sep 2 at 22:43
  • 2
    The CommonMark migration shouldn't have actually changed how it displayed (if the html would have changed the migration would have been skipped for the post), but the history may be incorrect because it is rendered as CommonMark and not Markdown (as it was originally). – Someone_Evil Sep 2 at 22:45
  • @Someone_Evil ah that might explain things better. Matthew may have seen it working before because it was before it was rendered in commonmark. – Kodos Johnson Sep 2 at 22:47
  • Aha! So the bug is (just) in how the diff is displayed! And it's a rather unavoidable result of the commonmark migration. Thanks. It seemed like a reasonable edit - removing a dead link - that threw me off - so I didn't realize what's now clear. It sure is odd that the diff tool shows the whole URL was removed from the markdown source text. Certainly a bug! But fixing it in the general case is practically imposible. – Matthew Elvey Sep 2 at 23:07
  • I strongly object to each of the edits to my question. – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 1:57
  • Who gets all the downvotes- which I think it’s been getting since that edit? – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 1:58
  • I don’t think they improve the search-ability, Put words in my mouth and correct stuff that’s not wrong like making it a bug – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 2:09
  • @MatthewElvey titles of bug reports should describe the bug. Your original title did not describe the bug even a little bit. Hence my downvote, which is now removed as the title is now fine. – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask Sep 3 at 7:34
  • Thanks for the reply. The person looking for a solution normally does not know what causes the bug. Using language to describe it that is only apparent once the cause has been determined does not make it easier to find. Also, the bug, which you call a bug too (twice), had the bug keyword removed by that edit! – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 19:06
  • But it's probably dangerous to argue against an edit I just noticed was by staff. <throws hands up> – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 19:06
9

When you first posted the answer, it displayed fine. However, since then the renderer changed, which broke the formatting that you had, causing the reference to the link to appear in the text. That's why the Community bot edited it: it was just making your post look the same as it did before, where the reference wasn't displayed in the post and instead was used to render the link. The revision history renders all revisions using the new renderer even though they were written for the older one, so it shows broken there since the previous text wasn't compliant with it.

(I think that the edit happened before the renderer was changed, so that it only ever displayed incorrectly in the edit history. There would have been a brief window between the edit and the renderer changing where the edit history would have shown no visual changes from the edit.)

It's easier to see it in action. [If there's a reference, this will be a link.][1]

You didn't need a blank line before this reference in the past, but the new renderer requires it (try editing to see this in action): [1]: https://superuser.com/posts/1201242/edit/db932148-a739-4039-ab4a-95b6eafc1a29

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Yup, that's it. @Kodos Johnson figured it out. I’m going to give your answer credit if he decides not to post an answer. – Matthew Elvey Sep 3 at 1:55
  • 1
    @MatthewElvey feel free to accept this answer – Kodos Johnson Sep 3 at 14:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .