Use https for opendap.org link, as http no longer supported.

[pp-mo]

Should fix #5619 CI linkcheck failure

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (72b56ec) 89.69% compared to head (e645d97) 89.69%.

❗ Current head e645d97 differs from pull request most recent head 2a5ac81. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2a5ac81 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                   @@
##           auto-update-lockfiles    #5628   +/-   ##
======================================================
  Coverage                  89.69%   89.69%           
======================================================
  Files                         90       90           
  Lines                      22807    22807           
  Branches                    5441     5441           
======================================================
  Hits                       20456    20456           
  Misses                      1618     1618           
  Partials                     733      733           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pp-mo]

Hang on, now failed elsewhere, on the twitter link.
But I think that may be a one-off
Trying a re-spin ...

[bjlittle]

Hang on, now failed elsewhere, on the twitter link. But I think that may be a one-off Trying a re-spin ...

@pp-mo I've been respinning various iris PR with this failure ... I'm tempted to suggest that you add the twitter link to the docs/src/conf.py to ignore as part of the linkcheck.

What say ye?

[bjlittle]

Add the twitter link to the list of exceptions in the docs/src/conf.py as it's giving us serious issues atm

[bjlittle]

@pp-mo Have you rebased from main after #5621 landed?

[pp-mo]

@pp-mo Have you rebased from main after #5621 landed?

No, this PR is not independent as it targets auto-update-lockfiles
i.e. it is a fix for #5619

[pp-mo]

Ok these 2 changes do seem to work around the problem.

@bjlittle is it good to merge this + #5619
or, given your comments above about "rebased from main after #5621 landed", is it better to launch a fresh PR, based on a more recent main ?