Skip to content

chore(v6): rename archived v6 pages and usage partials to .mdx - #4699

Open
thetaPC wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
FW-6456-pt9
Open

chore(v6): rename archived v6 pages and usage partials to .mdx#4699
thetaPC wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
FW-6456-pt9

Conversation

@thetaPC

@thetaPC thetaPC commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Issue URL: internal

What is the current behavior?

Every live doc page has moved to .mdx as part of the Strict MDX migration, but the archived versions were deliberately left alone, since they are never built.

That holds only while they stay archived. Most of these pages are MDX in everything but name: 170 of v6's 236 pages contain imports and 131 contain JSX. Once Strict MDX is enabled, reviving this version would parse those as plain CommonMark, turning every import into a line of literal text on the page. It would not fail the build, so the first sign of trouble would be a reader seeing an import statement in the middle of a paragraph.

Archived versions are revivable by design: the archiving guide already documents moving one back into versions.json. So leaving them behind converts a documented, supported operation into one that silently produces broken pages.

There is a second, more immediate problem. The CLI and Capacitor plugin pages are now generated as .mdx, but v6's pages still link to them as .md. Those links are already dead in a build where v6 is present.

What is the new behavior?

v6 is migrated to match the live versions: 235 pages and 312 playground partials renamed, along with the references between them, 540 component API imports, 317 playground imports, and 213 internal links.

versioned_docs/version-v6/README.md keeps its extension. It is a contributor note excluded from the site by the exclude setting, which names the file by extension, so renaming it would publish it as a page.

Nothing about the archived state changes. v6 stays in versionsArchived.json, stays out of versions.json, and is still not built. This only makes it safe to revive later.

Does this introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

Does this introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

Other information

This is the second of three, following v7 and ahead of v5. The three are independent, since each touches only its own version tree, so they can merge in any order.

All three land before the transitional compatibility code is removed, and that order matters. These archived pages currently import 450 component API partials by their .md names, which only resolve because the plugin still writes both. Removing that first would leave the archived versions broken and then fix them afterwards. Doing the versions first means nothing anywhere imports the old names by the time it comes out.

The same work then goes to translation/jp, and reaches major-10.0 through the usual sync.

Verification was done by temporarily reviving the version, since archived pages are otherwise never built and a mistake here would have no signal at all.

How to test

Archived versions are not built, so nothing in a normal preview exercises these pages. To check them, revive the version locally:

  1. Move v6 out of versionsArchived.json and back into versions.json.
  2. Add versioned_docs/version-v6 back to the write targets in scripts/native.mjs and scripts/cli.mjs, so the generated CLI and plugin pages exist for it.
  3. Run npm run generate-markdown, then npx docusaurus build with no --locale flag.
  4. Revert all of the above afterwards. None of it belongs in this PR.

The build should complete with no errors, and /docs/v6/ should render. Worth spot checking an API page for its generated tables and playgrounds, and following a link from a v6 page into the CLI or plugin docs, since those are the links this PR repairs.

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
ionic-docs Ready Ready Preview Sep 3, 2026 4:48pm UTC

Request Review

@thetaPC
thetaPC marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2026 17:17
@thetaPC
thetaPC requested a review from a team as a code owner September 3, 2026 17:17
@thetaPC
thetaPC requested a review from OS-jacobbell September 3, 2026 17:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant