Update cross-references when cloning a category
under review
h
harald dersch
ATM, when you clone a category all articles inside that category are clone "as is", including cross-references between the articles.
This yields the following issue. Imagine the simplest case where you have a category (catA) with two topics, e.g. topicA1 and topicA2, and topicA1 has a cross-reference to topicA2. Then you clone catA to catB. If you now click the cross-reference in the cloned topicA1 (or topicB1), you will open the original topicA2. Actually, I would expect that the cross-reference is updated and links to the cloned topicA2 (or topicB2 if you like). At least, I'd like to have an option to determine the behavior.
Log In
r
rebecca hewitt
Yes, we would like this functionality too. We have articles that link to each other which we have to update annually, whilst keeping the originals. An option to clone all articles and update the links to the new versions would save us an immense amount of time from manually updating hundreds of links.
Shakeer Hussain S
under review
Shakeer Hussain S
Hi All - Thank you for sharing your feedback! We understand that there are different perspectives on how cross-references should be handled when cloning a category.
Some users prefer automatic updates to links in cloned articles to save time, while others are concerned about unintended modifications, potential bugs, and the risk of broken references. Given this, we recognize that any change in behavior needs to be carefully designed with user control in mind.
At this point, we are taking all feedback into account and evaluating whether an optional setting—allowing users to choose whether to update links during cloning—could be a viable solution. We will continue to monitor interest in this request and assess its feasibility based on broader customer needs.
We appreciate the discussion and your insights! Please feel free to share any additional thoughts on how you'd like this functionality to work in an ideal scenario.
Riffat Wyne
Shakeer Hussain S Thank you for your reply and feedback.
I think when cloning a category, then we should get two options to select from:
- Update all cross-reference links (so they automatically redirect to new cloned category, instead of old)
- Ignore update of all cross-reference links (users manually update them)
Since we work with multiple releases in a year - we clone categories every time. With this option it will ease/eliminate our manual update of cross-reference links.
Riffat Wyne
What is the status on this request?
h
harald dersch
Ed Hawco To make a point for the value here, imagine this use case: You need to maintain multiple versions of a documentation set for a product at the same time (e.g. because you support multiple product versions at a time) with just one Doc360 workspace. A possibility is to use categories to keep the documentation for each version.
Category 1: Version 1.0
Category 2: Version 2.0
...
Certainly, you link heavily between the topics within a version (category). Now imagine that you need to prepare an upcoming "Version 3.0". The first thing would be to clone Version 2.0 (the current version). What you will need is that all topics within the new Version 3.0 are linking to the respective target within Version 3.0 and do NOT link to Version 2.0.
For sure, I'm just talking about cross-references that link to targets
within
the same category that is cloned. Cross-references to other (sub-)categories that are not cloned and external links should remain unchanged. And as written in the original post, this behavior could be at least opt-in.Now imagine a document set for a product with 1000+ topics and several hundred internal links (yes, we have that). Having to update 800+ links each time to prepare a new version manually is definitely out of the question, especially since you cannot even search/replace in the HTML code. And this may just be for one product.
Ed Hawco
harald dersch: OK, yes, I can see the challenge you're facing. It would be great if Doc360 can find a solution for you, but I would want it to be optional because I do not like the idea that the system can re-write links on its own without asking permission.
Ed Hawco
You're asking for the system to have the right to re-write links when it detects cloning of pages. If you ask me, that's a disaster waiting to happen. I do NOT want Doc360 to re-write links for me. The potential for buggy behaviour and unwanted link changes is very high.
Just my opinion, but I don't see the value in this. You're asking Doc360 to invest a large amount of development time into a feature that will save a few users a few minutes of re-linking after a cloning move while introducing a high risk across the board for other failures. This would ONLY be acceptable if the cloning action asked for permission first. But even then I suspect you'll spend more time fixing bugs and fixing misfired link updates than if you just relinked the old fashioned way.
h
hani
I the description above: basically, we need the option to be able to create RELATIVE links so that internal links are pointing to the pages within the newly copied category.