[Alexandre-T]

Pull Request

Summary

Development publication stopped during npm test because roadmap tests expected root-based HTML destinations while the configured development site correctly uses /spatial-docs/. Check exact HTML destinations for the active deployment configuration so both publication environments pass the test gate.

Related issue

Closes #147

Changes

• CI/CD or documentation tooling updated

The two roadmap link assertions use explicit expected directories for production and development, independently of the URL generator under test. Relative Markdown links, every published documentation version, and plain text for unpublished versions remain covered.

Standards and references

• Not applicable

Source and generated content

• Generated content is consistent with its source.
• Docusaurus builds successfully.
• Internal links are valid.
• Navigation and indexes are consistent.

Validation

• Markdown lint passes.
• Documentation build passes.
• Generated resources have been checked.
• Relevant links have been checked.
• CI passes.

Additional validation:

Run separately with DOCUSAURUS_DEPLOYMENT=production and DOCUSAURUS_DEPLOYMENT=development:

• node --test tests/roadmap-publication.test.mjs: 22 passed in each configuration.
• npm test: 446 passed, 1 optional Apache integration test skipped, 0 failed in each configuration. The development suite also used the workflow's production/preproduction URLs.
• node scripts/with-test-legal.mjs npm run build: local builds with fictional legal information; documentation corpus validation passed with 0 errors and 0 warnings in each configuration.
• git diff --check: passed.
• sh .githooks/pre-commit: Markdown lint passed.

The development failure was reproduced before the change. A successful remote development publication run must still be linked after integration; local validation does not establish deployment success.

Documentation impact

None. Only test expectations change. Existing explicit HTML paths and relative Markdown links are preserved; no documentation source or generated file is manually edited.

Checklist

• The Pull Request has a clear and focused scope.
• The related issue or Story acceptance criteria are satisfied locally.
• No generated file was manually edited when it must be generated from a source.
• No unrelated change is included.
• Documentation impact was assessed; affected public behavior is documented, or the reason no update is needed is stated.
• The Pull Request is ready for independent review.