[GH-ISSUE #268] Conflicting rules: `no-reversed-links` and no-`bare-urls` #2079

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-07 20:04:19 +03:00 by kerem · 1 comment

kerem commented

2026-03-07 20:04:19 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @arvigeus on GitHub (Mar 25, 2020).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/DavidAnson/markdownlint/issues/268

This:

(Incorrect link syntax)[https://www.example.com/]

Gets corrected to this:

(Incorrect link syntax)[<https://www.example.com/]>

I think bare-urls should not attempt to fix it in this case.

Originally created by @arvigeus on GitHub (Mar 25, 2020). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/DavidAnson/markdownlint/issues/268 This: ```md (Incorrect link syntax)[https://www.example.com/] ``` Gets corrected to this: ```md (Incorrect link syntax)[<https://www.example.com/]> ``` I think `bare-urls` should not attempt to fix it in this case.

kerem

2026-03-07 20:04:19 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
enhancement

fixed in next
labels

kerem commented

2026-03-07 20:04:21 +03:00

Author

Owner

@DavidAnson commented on GitHub (Mar 25, 2020):

The rules detect and report independently. When attempting to fix both at once, the library will not apply overlapping edits and so the first fix it sees “wins”.

That said, I may be able to detect this scenario and maybe not report it as a bare URL to avoid this scenario? I’m not sure I love that option; I will think about this some more.

@DavidAnson commented on GitHub (Mar 25, 2020): The rules detect and report independently. When attempting to fix both at once, the library will not apply overlapping edits and so the first fix it sees “wins”. That said, I may be able to detect this scenario and maybe not report it as a bare URL to avoid this scenario? I’m not sure I love that option; I will think about this some more.