Removing Markdown link checker

[mapachurro]

I'm testing something here: removing the Markdown linter that's included in the Github Actions script currently. This is an experiment to see if I can get it to, well, not break with Docusaurus-compatible internal linking, like (/managing-my-tokens/article.md)

[vercel[bot]]

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

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
doc-zk-evm	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Jul 24, 2023 9:10pm

[mapachurro]

Oof. It works with no errors. That's tempting

[mapachurro]

Update, and Context:

Update:

This PR worked in testing. However, we should not merge it unless absolutely necessary (and we'll have to do a big ole merge main before we do)

Context:

The linter is based on a library that lints Markdown. So, it's checking to make sure that Markdown links are properly formatted, and that they go to real places (it follows the link and makes sure it doesn't 404 or whatever).

The library does not know about Docusaurus, and Docusaurus' internal routing abilities and conventions. So, what is a valid link within the context of the Docusaurus application appears to be a dead link, to the linter.

There Is A Solution: delete the linter.

That's what this PR does.

It worked. But, it also removes, you know, the guardrails making sure our links are properly formatted.

Additional wrinkle:

In order to optimize PR compute times/resources, it only checks links that were updated since the last merge. So, you could have dead links that you previously merged, despite the errors, that will persist without you knowing about it. This is one of the downsides of using a new, open-source tool like Docusaurus: to my knowledge, no one has written a Docusaurus-specific link linter.

If one exists, we should absolutely replace our existing tool with it, as our existing tool is resulting in a broken development UX, wherein we honestly don't know whether we're deploying something with broken links or page routes, or not.

[jlwllmr]

@mapachurro do we still need this?

[jlwllmr]

Closing since recent conversations with @bgravenorst have led us to the position where we think it's best to just use relative paths generally (i.e. links that pass the linter check). We've more or less removed any problematic Docusaurus-style absolute links, though the linter does seem a little erratic and doesn't pick up on 100% of them.