TheOdinProject
JS Revisiting Webpack: Change assignment link to previous version
Checks
- [x] This is not a duplicate of an existing issue (please have a look through our open issues list to make sure)
- [x] I have thoroughly read and understand The Odin Project Contributing Guide
- [x] Would you like to work on this issue?
Describe your suggestion
In the assignment it links to this page: https://www.upgrad.com/blog/introduction-to-package-json-scripts-in-node-js/
I was reading through this and was increasingly getting the feeling that it was generated with an LLM. Or if not, just poorly put together. It was hard read. This isn't just to complain about that though. I did see that the article was updated in January of this year, and I looked at when the lesson was last updated and it was before this.
I did find an earlier (but not original) version of this article on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20241112004036/https://www.upgrad.com/blog/introduction-to-package-json-scripts-in-node-js/
This version is much more concise and better written. I was going to just make a pull request and swap the link, but it seemed more open-ended than just a broken link, so after posting to discord was pointed towards making an issue.
Path
Node / JS
Lesson Url
https://www.theodinproject.com/lessons/javascript-revisiting-webpack#assignment
(Optional) Discord Name
lagarathan
(Optional) Additional Comments
No response
Oh great, AI strikes again. Yeah, the webarchive link you found is what I remember picking the article for and the current form is... not nice. Great catch and dig.
Well, if that just replacing the link seems like a good fix for it, I could make it after work today. Also a good one for a first time contributor if you want me to leave it open for someone like that to pick it up.
I'm not a maint anymore so can't assign anyone or make decisions for this, but I can confirm the context at least.
Yeah I think replacing it would be good, thanks for raising this issue and volunteering to contribute!
I do think that rather than leaning on the web archive I would prefer if we could find an alternative resource if possible. If you don't feel up for that though we could change it to the archive for now and create a follow up issue for finding a better resource.
Was busy this last weekend and haven't had a chance to look around yet. But I should get some time and search around the next couple days and bring back some potential alternatives.
This issue is stale because it has had no activity for the last 30 days.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Hey @qpongratz , just checking in - are you still working on this, or would you like us to give someone else a shot at it?
@KevinMulhern I totally spaced on this one, yeah I'm okay with someone else grabbing it. Have not looked into a replacement resource.
...If you don't feel up for that though we could change it to the archive for now and create a follow up issue for finding a better resource.
May I help with this one? Did a quick search here, and so far haven't found the original article yet, so I'd be replacing it with the WebArchive link, for the time being.
Seems to be a better option than having some AI generated content, at least for now.
Just spent some time on this one, I was able to find what seems to be the original version of the article on WebArchive, dates back to 2022. Unfortunately, some images are not loading directly on WebArchive's page, but works if we copy its url and remove WebArchive's prefix.
Also found what might possibly be a reasonable replacement. It seems to cover most topics when compared to the original article: Overview, Basic Usage, Using Flags, Pre and Post Scripts, Life Cycle Scripts and Best Practices.
Only downside is that it has an "extra" section with Bash Tricks, which we might need to also add to the lifecycle disclaimer we currently have (so users wouldn't worry much about that specific section).
Can anyone review if this seems like a good replacement? I'm willing to make the change if approved and reword the disclaimer to include the bash script section.
Hello, I am doing The Odin Project and I am in the getting hired course now, so I am looking for my first time contribution. Reviewing this issue, I noticed that the article whose link you want to replace was updated last May 28. I don't know if with this update the replacement may not be necessary. I let you know because in case no replacement is necessary the issue may be closed. But if substitution is still required because the WaybackMachine article is easier to read I would be interested in making the link substitution as my code contribution. However, in my opinion (not experienced) the upGrad article, although a bit messy, has many examples of the subject in question (Package JSON Scripts).
This issue is stale because it has had no activity for the last 30 days.
Sorry for the delay! @ric-projects @manelly67 are either of you still interested in this one?
Sorry for the delay! @ric-projects @manelly67 are either of you still interested in this one?
Yeah, I can help with this one.
In my previous message I listed two options, one being the original article archived on WebArchive and the other one being a replacement
I think the replacement works well for this section, as long as a warning to skip the Bash Script section is added (along with the other one we already have for the lifecycle part).
Should I wait for someone to review the suggested new article, or would it be easier if I make a PR directly?
Hello.
I am also available and I want to help.
As this one I think is already going to be assigned to @ric-projects
Remember I offered my help in other issue, the number #29512 Rendering Techniques: Missing info on how props and components work, causing confusion.
Thanks @ric-projects, lets try the replacement out. I've assigned this to you!
This issue is stale because it has had no activity for the last 30 days.