Last updated on 6 Feb. 2026

Quick Info

Deployed site: https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

GitHub repo: https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp

Hostinger domain mapped to above site: https://raviiyerss.in

=============================================================

Summary Notes

This is not a summary of the post but has summary notes of some parts of this post.

Advantages of using stripped down version of Tier-1 template for landing/home page template

Quality alignment: Using (Tier-1) ensures code aligns with Next.js standards, future-proofing your work.
Minimal risk: MIT license + controlled strip-down → commercial-safe static site.
Efficiency: Instead of writing everything yourself, you get:

Working responsive UI
Hamburger menu already styled
Tailwind + Headless UI patterns pre-applied

Learning bonus: While stripping, you understand a production-grade Next.js + App Router + Tailwind setup. Later, this knowledge translates to real --snipped-- projects.

Nextjs SSG: <Link> prefetch should be disabled

When using output: 'export' (static site generation), Next.js <Link> component's automatic prefetching often causes 404 errors and resource waste because it tries to fetch route data files that might not exist or be named differently in a static environment.

Disabling prefetch solved <Link> component issues for output:'export'

Nextjs SSG: package.json scripts block

Build variants (GHP is GitHub Pages):

build: Local build to be used with npx http-server for testing
build:custom: Custom domain build that will be deployed on GHP
build:ghp: GHP build that will be deployed on GHP and used only through GHP URL (not custom domain)

Deploy script is same for build:custom and build:ghp.

"scripts": {

"dev": "next dev --turbopack",

"build": "next build && copy public\\CNAME out\\CNAME",

"build:custom": "next build && copy public\\CNAME out\\CNAME",

"build:ghp": "set \"DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp\" && next build && copy public\\CNAME out\\CNAME",

"start": "next start",

"deploy": "npx gh-pages --nojekyll -d out -r https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp"

Nextjs SSG: next.config.ts

let basePath = "";

if (

process.env.NODE_ENV === "production" &&

process.env.DEPLOY_TARGET === "ghp"

) {

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp";

}

console.log(`Base Path enclosed in quotes: '${basePath}'`);

export default {

output: "export",

trailingSlash: true,

basePath,

images: {

unoptimized: true,

};

GitHub Pages + Custom Domain + HTTPS Checklist

GitHub Pages → Custom domain set (e.g. raviiyerss.in)
CNAME file exists in deployed output (not just repo)
Hostinger A records = only
185.199.108.153 / .109 / .110 / .111
Hostinger CNAME: www → ravisiyer.github.io
NO AAAA (IPv6) record — delete it if present
No Hostinger redirects (301 / 302)
If CAA records exist, at least one must allow letsencrypt.org
(No CAA at all is also OK)
nslookup -type=AAAA domain → no result
Run https://letsdebug.net if HTTPS is stuck
Remove & re-add custom domain in GitHub Pages (DNS unchanged)

Misc

Powershell script: gensrctree.ps1 (shared as gist) that generates a project directory tree text file showing application-relevant files of a Next.js app (excluding node_modules, build, and tooling directories).
Renaming a file from hero.tsx to Hero.tsx did not result in TypeScript registering that change and so caused VSCode error/warning. The fix was to restart the TypeScript server by:

Ctrl + Shift + P
Type: TypeScript: Restart TS server
Press Enter

=============================================================

Details

This post follows up on my previous post: Identifying Useful Nextjs templates with permissive license that allows for commerical use.

I am now working on modifications of a tier-1 template for my Next.js static website needs. However, that work is private.

Given below are some points and edited extracts from ChatGPT exchanges that cover generic stuff and so I am sharing them publicly.

Me: Let me share another advantage of using (tier-1) repo rather than something like: --snipped-- even if it has broad community acceptance. You see the latter offers free and priced versions. The free version demo is here: --snipped-- . It doesn't even have a hamburger menu. .... Perhaps it is a marketing tactic. Give free template which lacks certain key stuff and entice the user to buy premium which will have these nice features. With (tier-1) repo, there is no such limit (on) features in free version kind of marketing tactic as they do not have premium version repo.

...

Me: I also looked at https://github.com/vercel/ship-content-driven-websites . it is very interesting for my use case where I want a static site but some of whose content is driven by a CMS which can be a free git-backed CMS like Decap CMS on GitHub Pages OR, if customer is willing, paid CMS. But it does not have MIT license. I could try to interact with the developers/maintainers of the repo and request MIT license if they have missed it by oversight. But it is an indication of --snipped--. It also has very few stars and few developers. ...

...

Me: Now from a licensing point of view, me stripping --snipped-- down to a simple static site should not an issue. Am I right?

CG: Yes — you are right.

From a licensing point of view, stripping down --snipped-- to a simple static site is completely permissible and safe, provided you follow MIT’s very small set of obligations.

...

Me: ... But based on this preliminary work, it seems that stripping down --snipped-- to a simple landing page/home page site with hamburger menu, responsive features, about page etc. will not be too difficult. After that's done, the site can be converted to a static export site.

...

CG: ... [agreeing with my assessment but giving detailed view:]

Code quality and design patterns

(Tier-1 template/repo)

Uses modern Next.js patterns: App Router, server + client components, React Context for state
Tailwind + Headless UI → minimal CSS boilerplate
Modular design → easy to strip down
Clearly tested and maintained (*k stars, hundreds of contributors, *k forks) → strong confidence in quality

--snipped--

Many small components, some redundant
Code style inconsistent across files
Possibly intended for flexibility, not clarity
Not maintained by (Tier-1) team → lower confidence in long-term compatibility with App Router

...

CG: ...

Principle: “Go with a professionally respected group”

You are explicitly valuing provenance and maintenance, not just feature set.
This is exactly what experienced engineers do, especially for code that will form the basis of commercial solutions.
Picking a (Tier-1)-owned repo gives you:

Trusted coding patterns aligned with Next.js best practices
Consistent styling and architecture
Predictable maintenance and future updates

✅ This is a smart risk reduction step. Choosing a less-known community repo (like --snipped--) increases hidden risk: undocumented patterns, outdated Next.js approaches, brittle component coupling.

Observation: “No static site template exists, so pick something else and strip it down”

Pragmatic and realistic: you don’t force a search for an exact match.
You understand that stripping down is feasible because:

--snipped-- is modular
--snipped-- logic is isolated
UI (Navbar, responsive layout, hamburger menu) is already solid

You are not compromising quality, just removing unnecessary features.

✅ This is a valid engineering shortcut: leverage professional code quality, even if some features are stripped.

Aggressive validation of your plan

Quality alignment: Using (Tier-1) ensures code aligns with Next.js standards, future-proofing your work.
Minimal risk: MIT license + controlled strip-down → commercial-safe static site.
Efficiency: Instead of writing everything yourself, you get:

Working responsive UI
Hamburger menu already styled
Tailwind + Headless UI patterns pre-applied

Learning bonus: While stripping, you understand a production-grade Next.js + App Router + Tailwind setup. Later, this knowledge translates to real --snipped-- projects.

Bottom line: You are piggybacking on professional engineering maturity, not just the code itself. This is both time-efficient and low-risk.

[I had to downgrade Next.js from canary release to stable release as canary release was giving lot of npm warnings. For first working version I went with lowest acceptable version which turned out to be Nextjs 15. Later I upgraded to current Nextjs 16 version along with upgrading React to matching version.]

CG: ...

Why a “welcome” toast is usually bad UX

For a normal website (landing page, education site, docs, profile site):

The user did nothing yet
The toast interrupts attention
It competes with hero content
It adds cognitive noise on first paint
On mobile, it often obscures content

In UX terms:

A welcome toast violates progressive disclosure.

That’s why you almost never see:

Wikipedia
University sites
Product landing pages
Documentation portals

use welcome toasts.

Even Google avoids them.

When a website might justify a toast

Very narrow cases:

✔ Acceptable

Cookie / consent banner (not a toast, really)
Beta / preview disclaimer
Region-specific notice
Signed-in state notification
“New version available” for returning users

❌ Not acceptable

“Welcome to our website”
“Thanks for visiting”
“Explore our features”

Those belong in:

Hero section
Subheading
Onboarding page
Not a toast

...

Me: In the home/landing page, we have Home, Features and About sections. Are they typical?

CG: Yes — Home, Features, About are not just typical; they are the most conservative, lowest-risk, universally understood section set for a home/landing page.

Let me validate this precisely, not hand-wavingly.

Are these sections “typical”?

Yes — across industries, eras, and frameworks.

The canonical minimal landing structure is:

Home (Hero)
Features (or What / Offerings)
About (Who / Why / Trust)

This pattern appears in:

SaaS sites
Consulting sites
Educational sites
Non-profits
Personal professional sites
Documentation hubs

It predates React, Next.js, Tailwind, etc. This is information architecture, not fashion.

What each section actually means (important distinction)

🏠 Home

Not a “section” conceptually — it is the entry context.

Typically contains:

Headline
One-sentence positioning
Visual anchor
Optional CTA (even if passive)

Even if the page scrolls, Home = the hero area.

✔ You need this.

⭐ Features

This is the value articulation zone.

It answers:

“What do I get if I continue reading?”

For:

Education sites → offerings, subjects, philosophy
Informational sites → key ideas, scope
Tools → capabilities

Even for non-product sites, Features works as:

“Highlights”
“Key aspects”
“What this site covers”

✔ Completely appropriate.

👤 About

This is the credibility and trust anchor.

It answers:

“Who is behind this, and why should I care?”

For static sites, this is especially important because:

There’s no interactive proof (logins, dashboards, etc.)
Trust must come from narrative

✔ Essential.

What you are not doing — and why that’s good

You are not adding:

Testimonials
Pricing
Case studies
CTA-heavy sections
Popups
Lead magnets

That’s correct for your current intent.

Those belong to:

Marketing funnels
SaaS conversions
Growth experiments

You are building:

A clean, professional, content-forward static site foundation

Industry sanity check (aggressive validation)

Let’s test your structure against common real-world sites:

Site Type	Home	Features	About
University dept	✔	✔	✔
Personal academic site	✔	✔	✔
NGO	✔	✔	✔
Technical documentation	✔	✔	✔
Spiritual / philosophical site	✔	✔	✔

✅ Passes every category.

Are you missing anything?

Only optional, not required:

Contact
Often placed in footer instead of header.
Footer navigation
You already have this.
Blog / Articles
Can be added later without changing architecture.

So your header nav being:

Home | Features | About

is perfectly sound.

...

Me: We have Contact in footer menu but not in header menu. I guess thats OK.

CG:

Yes — that’s completely OK, and in fact quite reasonable for the kind of site you’re building.

Let me give you a clear mental model so this feels intentional, not accidental.

Header vs Footer: different jobs

Header menu

Purpose:

Primary navigation
Task-oriented
Should stay lean

Typical items:

Home
Features
About
Docs / Pricing (if applicable)

Adding Contact to the header often:

Adds noise
Encourages premature interaction
Competes with the main story of the page

Especially for a static landing page, header minimalism is a virtue.

Footer menu

Purpose:

Secondary / utility navigation
Trust, support, and closure

Typical items:

About
Contact
Support
Privacy / Terms
Copyright

Users expect to find Contact here. They actively look for it in the footer.

Real-world pattern (you’re matching it)

Many professional sites do exactly what you’re doing:

Header: no Contact
Footer: Contact link or email

Especially true for:

Developer tools
Templates
Consulting / software services
Early-stage or minimal sites

So your choice is not just acceptable — it’s conventional.

Extra confirmation from UX perspective

Since:

Contact is an anchor (#contact)
It’s not a primary conversion funnel yet
You may later replace it with a page or form

Keeping it in the footer:

Avoids over-prominence
Avoids future churn in header design
Keeps the header stable as you iterate

This aligns well with your “strip down first, evolve later” approach.

When you might add Contact to header (future)

Only if:

Contact becomes a primary call-to-action
You add a real form or booking flow
The site’s goal shifts from informational → lead-driven

You are not there yet, and that’s fine.

Bottom line

✔ Footer-only Contact is correct
✔ Header stays clean
✔ Your information hierarchy makes sense

...

CG: ... Because you are using next/link, navigation to /support is client-side (SPA-style), not a full browser reload.

What actually happens under the hood

next/link ≠ normal <a href>

Even though it renders an <a> tag, next/link:

Intercepts the click event
Prevents default browser navigation
Uses Next.js router to change routes
Fetches only the RSC payload needed for /support
Preserves JS state where applicable

So this is client-side navigation, not a hard reload.

How this differs from a full reload

Aspect	next/link	Normal <a href="/support">
Page reload	❌ No	✅ Yes
JS context	Preserved	Destroyed
Layout (app/layout.tsx)	Reused	Reinitialized
Network usage	Minimal (RSC payload)	Full HTML + assets
UX	Instant	Slower

You are firmly in SPA territory here.

...

CG: ...[About figuring out from browser whether visiting a link in app was an SPA navigation or full reload:]

Important nuance (why visual cues aren’t perfect)

Chrome may show very brief spinner flickers even for SPA nav
Prefetching can hide reload costs
Fast reloads can look like SPA nav on fast machines

So:

Spinner alone is a strong hint,
Network tab is proof.

Practical rule you can safely use

For day-to-day work:

If the tab spinner does NOT appear and the console does NOT clear, assume SPA navigation.

For certainty:

Check Network → Document request.

In your specific project

Link from header/footer → SPA navigation ✔
Hash links → browser-native scroll ✔
Typing URL / refresh → full reload ✔

Everything behaves exactly as a modern Next.js app should.

===============================================

1 Feb. 2026

[Switched to new CG chat session. I wanted to get the project Next.js and React packages upgraded to latest stable version and see if the app continued to work.]

Me: Now https://nextjs.org/docs/app/guides/upgrading/version-16 suggests using: npm install next@latest react@latest react-dom@latest to do the upgrade. What do u say?

...

CG... npm supports a dry run mode that resolves versions but does not modify:

node_modules
package.json
package-lock.json

Run this:


npm install next@latest react@latest react-dom@latest --dry-run

What you’ll see

npm will print lines like:


added next@16.1.0
added react@19.2.1
added react-dom@19.2.1

This tells you exactly:

which versions @latest currently resolves to
whether npm would pull something unexpected

Nothing is installed. Nothing is changed.

👉 This is the closest possible preview of the real install.

...

Me: ... npm install next@latest react@latest react-dom@latest --dry-run

add baseline-browser-mapping 2.9.19

add @next/swc-win32-arm64-msvc 16.1.6

...

change @next/swc-win32-x64-msvc 15.5.0 => 16.1.6

change @next/env 15.5.0 => 16.1.6

change react-dom 19.0.0 => 19.2.4

change scheduler 0.25.0 => 0.27.0

change react 19.0.0 => 19.2.4

change next 15.5.0 => 16.1.6

added 52 packages, and changed 6 packages in 16s

46 packages are looking for funding

run `npm fund` for details

...

CG: Excellent — this dry-run output is very informative, and it answers the question decisively.

Let me interpret it cleanly and then give a clear recommendation.

1. What `@latest` would install today

From your dry run, npm would resolve:

Next.js → 16.1.6
React → 19.2.4
React DOM → 19.2.4

Key lines confirming this:


change next 15.5.0 => 16.1.6
change react 19.0.0 => 19.2.4
change react-dom 19.0.0 => 19.2.4

So:

You are not getting a canary
You are not getting a prerelease
You are getting latest stable patch releases

This is exactly the outcome we were hoping for.

...

2. Assessment of these versions (important)

✅ React 19.2.4

Fully stable
Bug-fix + security-fix only
No breaking API changes vs 19.0.0
Correct pairing with modern Next.js

👍 This is strictly better than staying on 19.0.0.

✅ Next.js 16.1.6

Stable 16.x line
Includes multiple post-16.0 security and stability fixes
Compatible with React 19.2.x
Turbopack + App Router mature enough now

👍 This is an excellent baseline version for a starter project.

...

CG: ...

What `@next/swc-*` actually is

Next.js uses SWC (a Rust-based compiler) for:

transpiling TypeScript / JSX
compiling App Router code
bundling during next dev and next build

Because SWC is written in Rust, it is shipped as precompiled native binaries, one per OS + CPU + libc.

That’s what these packages are.

Why so many variants appear

Let’s decode one line:


@next/swc-linux-x64-gnu

This means:

linux → OS
x64 → CPU architecture
gnu → glibc-based Linux

Other examples:

Package	Meaning
`win32-arm64-msvc`	Windows on ARM64 (Surface, Snapdragon, etc.)
`linux-x64-musl`	Alpine Linux (musl libc)
`darwin-arm64`	Apple Silicon Macs
`darwin-x64`	Intel Macs

Next.js publishes all of them, npm resolves only the one that matches your system.

What actually happens on your Windows 11 PC

Your system is:

OS: Windows
CPU: x64
Toolchain: MSVC

So npm will actually install and use only:


@next/swc-win32-x64-msvc

The others:

are ignored
are not downloaded
are not shipped with your app
are not used at runtime

They only appear in the dry-run output because npm is showing all potential optional binaries Next.js could use on other platforms.

...

Me: While my goal is to have a static landing page site starter project, it has struck me that first I can go for a regular landing page site starter project which could be dynamic as well. Once that is accomplished I will create a variation that is a static landing page site starter project.

...

----- end chat exchange extracts -----

I got CG to create a Powershell script: gensrctree.ps1 (shared as gist) that (from its comments)

# This Powershell script generates a project directory tree text file showing application-relevant files

# of a Next.js app (excluding node_modules, build, and tooling directories).

# 1) Accepts input directory as an argument. If no argument is specified then it uses current directory

# as the input directory

# 2) Excludes node_modules, .next, .git, .vscode and .github directories

# 3) The output is written to tree.txt in UTF-8 (with BOM) encoding.

# 4) A header explanatory section is provided at top of tree.txt describing the contents below it.

# 5) If tree.txt already exists, the script aborts to prevent overwriting the file.

----

This was useful to share with CG to give it an idea of the app source code structure.

...

I used scroll-mt-16 (scroll-margin-top) for handling anchor-offset issues.

...

I converted the mobile menu to a drawer.

----

Nextjs dev server now shows some cross-origin warning message when ip addresses are used.

On my Win 11 PC, on Chrome, going to: http://192.168.137.1:3000/ shows the app home page but the dev server shows the warning. See below:

npm run dev

> dev

> next dev --turbopack

▲ Next.js 16.1.6 (Turbopack)

- Local: http://localhost:3000

- Network: http://192.168.137.1:3000

- Environments: .env

- Experiments (use with caution):

✓ inlineCss

✓ useCache

✓ Starting...

✓ Ready in 1459ms

GET / 200 in 2.3s (compile: 2.1s, render: 213ms)

⚠ Blocked cross-origin request from 192.168.137.1 to /_next/* resource. To allow this, configure "allowedDevOrigins" in next.config

Read more: https://nextjs.org/docs/app/api-reference/config/next-config-js/allowedDevOrigins

GET / 200 in 61ms (compile: 5ms, render: 56ms)

GET / 200 in 59ms (compile: 4ms, render: 55ms)

-----

Note that the dev server itself says: - Network: http://192.168.137.1:3000

Based on https://nextjs.org/docs/app/api-reference/config/next-config-js/allowedDevOrigins and discussion with CG on it, I tried many variations in next.config.ts to fix the issue. The current version of next.config.ts corresponding to above messages is:

export default {

// Add PC's local network IP to allow dev requests from mobile

// Does not prevent warnings:

// ⚠ Blocked cross-origin request from 10.92.203.84 to /_next/* resource.

// ⚠ Blocked cross-origin request from 192.168.137.1 to /_next/* resource.

allowedDevOrigins: [

"http://10.92.203.84:3000",

"http://10.92.203.84",

"http://192.168.137.1:3000",

"http://192.168.137.1",

---snipped--

};

---------

I decided to live with the issue till I found something that creates a real issue for the app. As per CG, this is a development server issue only. Relevant extracts from CG chat are given below:

Me: ... you said: This does not affect production; it only quiets the dev warning.

Oh! I thought it might create some production issues. But what u r saying is that the production site will be accessible from any origin without these issues.

CG: Exactly — you understood it correctly. ✅

Here’s the nuance:

1️⃣ Why it’s only a dev warning

allowedDevOrigins is only used by the Next.js development server.
When you run next dev, Next.js checks the origin of incoming requests for its internal assets (/_next/*).
If you access the dev server from a different IP than localhost, it logs a warning to prevent accidental cross-origin issues during development.

2️⃣ What happens in production

In production (next start or when deployed), Next.js does not enforce allowedDevOrigins.
Your production site is served normally by:
- next start (Node.js server)
- Or a hosting platform like Vercel
Clients from any origin can access it, provided normal web server/network rules allow it.
So adding allowedDevOrigins does not affect production behavior at all.

✅ Bottom line

Dev warning = harmless, only affects dev workflow
Production = no restriction, no extra config needed
You only add allowedDevOrigins if you want the dev console to be clean when accessing from other devices or IPs.

...

Me: ... But what is the reason for checking this in development? Are there security issues?

CG: Exactly — the warning is not arbitrary, it’s a deliberate safeguard in the development environment. Here’s the reasoning:

1️⃣ Why Next.js checks cross-origin requests in dev

During development (next dev):

Next.js serves dynamic assets and JavaScript from /_next/*.
These assets are served with internal development features (like Hot Module Replacement, Turbopack cache, etc.).
If a browser on a different origin (IP/domain) requests these assets, it could potentially access the dev server in unintended ways.
Essentially, Next.js wants to prevent unintended cross-origin access to the dev server, which could:
- Expose internal debug endpoints
- Corrupt HMR updates
- Lead to inconsistent dev behavior

So it logs a warning if the request origin isn’t explicitly allowed.

2️⃣ Why it’s dev-only

In production, you usually deploy behind a proper web server or CDN, which already enforces:
- CORS policies
- Firewall / network restrictions
The production server doesn’t need to protect against the dev-specific cross-origin scenario.
That’s why allowedDevOrigins is dev-only and won’t affect your live site.

3️⃣ Security implications

During dev: ignoring this warning could let any device on your local network hit your dev server and request HMR / internal resources.
- Not usually a big deal on a trusted local network, but good hygiene.
Production: no effect — normal browser requests and CORS are handled by the server/framework.

✅ Practical takeaway

Configuring allowedDevOrigins now simply silences the warning and explicitly declares which dev origins are trusted.
It’s a dev-time security check, not a production restriction.
You’ll avoid surprises if future Next.js versions enforce it strictly.

...

[I next moved to implementing floating scroll to top button functionality.]

Me: ... Now some finer aspects. ...
Firstly I wanted to know whether having a transparent background for such a button is the norm OR is an opaque background (which is the default behaviour) the norm? 

CG: ...

Short answer (clear stance)

Opaque (or semi-opaque) background is the norm.
Fully transparent background is not the norm and is usually a UX mistake.

Why opaque background became the standard

A floating “scroll to top” button has three competing requirements:

Always visible
Always readable
Never mistaken for content

A transparent button fails #1 and #2 in many real situations.

Problems with transparent backgrounds

Background content changes constantly while scrolling
Text + images + gradients reduce contrast unpredictably
The button can visually “disappear” over light sections (your hero gradient is a perfect example)
Touch targets become ambiguous on mobile

Transparent works only if:

Page background is extremely uniform
OR the button is very large and icon-heavy

Your page is not uniform.

What most well-designed sites actually do

Common industry patterns

Opaque background with contrast
- White on dark
- Dark on light
- Brand color (very common)
Semi-opaque (“frosted”) background
- bg-white/80, bg-black/60
- With backdrop blur
- This is modern and tasteful
Shadow + rounded shape
- Separates it from content visually
- Reinforces “floating” affordance

Pure transparency is rare in production UI for floating actions.

Material, iOS, and modern UI guidance (implicitly)

Material Design FAB → always opaque
iOS floating controls → translucent, not transparent
Tailwind UI examples → solid or frosted

They all optimize for legibility first, aesthetics second.

What fits your page specifically

Your home page has:

Strong color gradients
Alternating light/dark sections
Dark mode support

So the best options are:

✅ Best overall choice (recommended)

Semi-opaque background

Adapts well across sections
Works in light and dark mode
Looks modern, not heavy

Example conceptually:

Rounded circle
Background: white @ 80% (light) / neutral-800 @ 80% (dark)
Shadow: subtle

✅ Acceptable alternative

Solid brand color

Teal fits your palette well
Slightly more “attention-grabbing”
Still perfectly valid

❌ Not recommended

Fully transparent background
Outline-only button
Icon without a container

A useful mental rule

If a control floats above content, it must have its own visual surface.

That surface can be solid or translucent — but it must exist.

Bottom line

Opaque or semi-opaque is the norm
Transparent is the exception, and usually avoided
For your page: semi-opaque wins (best balance of usability + aesthetics)

...

Me: Oh! react-scroll-to-top does not handle dark mode. Did I get that right?

CG: Short, precise answer first:

Yes — you understood it correctly.
react-scroll-to-top does not handle dark mode by itself.

Now the important nuance 👇

What “does not handle dark mode” really means

react-scroll-to-top:

❌ Has no awareness of themes
❌ Does not react to prefers-color-scheme
❌ Does not integrate with Tailwind’s dark: mechanism
❌ Does not expose a theme / mode prop

It simply renders a DOM element with:

inline styles (position, size, background default)
optional className
optional component (icon)

What you can still do (important)

Even though the package itself is theme-agnostic:

✅ You can still style it for dark mode manually
because it ultimately renders a normal element.

That’s why this works:

className="bg-white/80 dark:bg-neutral-800/80"

Tailwind applies dark: at runtime → the package doesn’t need to know.

So the correct mental model is:

The library does not manage dark mode — but it does not block you from doing so.

Why this matters architecturally

This is the key distinction:

Aspect	Custom component	react-scroll-to-top
Dark mode awareness	Native	Manual
Tailwind-first	Yes	Partially
Inline styles	Minimal	Yes (forced)
Design-system friendly	High	Medium
Dependency-free	Yes	No

For a landing site with strong Tailwind usage, this is why your custom solution felt cleaner.

Final recommendation (reconfirmed)

Your instinct was right to question this 👍
If dark mode polish matters (and it clearly does in your app):
- Prefer your custom component
If you still use react-scroll-to-top:
- Treat it as a behavior helper, not a UI component
- Override everything visually

...

Me: U see, the problem is that the code you provided is not community tested. I spotted this issue and you gave the fix. But there may be other such issues in your code. If I use react-scroll-to-top I piggyback on community testing of the component.

CG: You’re thinking about this exactly the right way, and your concern is technically sound.

Let me give you a clear, opinionated answer, not a “both are fine” platitude.

Your reasoning is correct — in principle

Yes:

Using react-scroll-to-top lets you piggyback on community testing and edge-case coverage.

That’s a valid engineering instinct, especially when:

the component is UI-only
non-differentiating
not core business logic

This is how mature teams think.

However…

The important counterpoint (and this matters here)

A Scroll to Top button is an extremely small, low-risk, low-state component.

Let’s decompose the risk surface:

What can realistically go wrong?

show/hide threshold
smooth scroll behavior
positioning
pointer cursor (you already caught this)
dark mode styling

That’s basically it.

There are no:

async flows
external APIs
complex lifecycle interactions
race conditions
data dependencies

So the testing value of the community package is limited for this particular feature.

The real tradeoff (this is the key insight)

Using `react-scroll-to-top`

Pros

Community-tested behavior
Zero logic to write
Faster initial setup

Cons

❌ No first-class dark mode support (you already discovered this)
❌ Styling control is limited / awkward
❌ Extra dependency for a trivial feature
❌ You still end up wrapping or overriding styles
❌ You’re trusting their defaults, not yours

In other words:
You still have to inspect and adjust it, so the “community-tested” advantage is partially eroded.

Writing a tiny local component (what you did)

Pros

Full control over:
- dark mode
- opacity
- icon choice
- positioning
- Tailwind integration
No extra dependency
Easy to reason about (you understand 100% of it)
Fits your landing-site pattern perfectly

Cons

You must be attentive to small UX details
(which you clearly are)

A strong recommendation (not neutral)

👉 For this project, your own component is the better choice.

Reasons:

You already care about polish and correctness
You noticed issues faster than most users would
Dark mode is a first-class concern in your app
This is not logic you’ll reuse across many apps
The component is ~20–30 lines of trivial code

This is exactly the type of UI where:

“Simple, local, owned code beats generic library code”

A practical middle ground (if you want extra confidence)

If you’re worried about missing things, do this checklist once and you’re done forever:

✅ cursor-pointer
✅ keyboard focus (tabIndex, role="button" if not <button>)
✅ aria-label="Scroll to top"
✅ smooth scrolling
✅ dark/light styles
✅ hidden until scroll threshold

Once those are covered, the component is functionally complete.

No community package is adding magic beyond that.

Final verdict

Your instinct is correct engineering thinking — but in this case:

The dependency cost outweighs the testing benefit.

You’ve already demonstrated the attention to detail needed to safely own this component.

Stick with your version. It’s the right call here.

Me: What exactly is this dependency cost?

CG: Good question. Let’s be precise and concrete — not hand-wavy.

When we say “dependency cost”, we are not talking about today’s effort. We are talking about long-term, cumulative costs that come only from adding an external package, even a small one.

Below is a clean breakdown, applied specifically to react-scroll-to-top in your Next.js app.

1. Versioning & upgrade cost (inevitable)

Once added, a dependency becomes part of your upgrade surface.

What can happen later

React major upgrade (18 → 19)
Next.js upgrade (App Router changes, strict mode changes)
Build tool changes (Turbopack, SWC behavior)

Now you must ask:

“Is react-scroll-to-top compatible with this upgrade?”

If:

the package is slow to update
or becomes unmaintained
or has breaking changes

👉 Your upgrade is blocked or complicated, even though your own code was fine.

This is a real cost that appears months later.

2. Styling impedance cost (already visible)

You already hit this.

react-scroll-to-top:

does not natively support dark mode
assumes inline styles / default colors
requires overrides or custom children

That means:

more props
more CSS overrides
more reading of their internals

So instead of:

<div className="dark:bg-neutral-800" />

You’re doing:

<ScrollToTop
  style={{ backgroundColor: ... }}
  component={<CustomIcon />}
/>

👉 You pay integration tax for something trivial.

3. Debugging cost (asymmetric pain)

If your own component misbehaves:

you open the file
fix it in 2 minutes

If a dependency misbehaves:

read docs
inspect source
search issues
check versions
possibly fork or replace it

Example future issue:

“ScrollToTop no longer appears after Next.js upgrade”

Now you’re debugging someone else’s abstraction.

That asymmetry is a cost.

4. Bundle & runtime surface cost (small but real)

Even small libraries:

add JS to the client bundle
add runtime code paths
add event listeners you don’t control

For a landing page:

every extra client dependency matters
especially one always mounted

Yes, this is a small cost — but it is non-zero, and your own component would be smaller.

5. Conceptual & maintenance cost

This is subtle but important.

Each dependency:

must be remembered
explained to future you
audited for security (even if low risk)
evaluated when pruning dependencies

Six months later:

“Why do we have react-scroll-to-top for 25 lines of behavior?”

That cognitive overhead is real.

6. Lock-in cost (exit friction)

Once used:

removing it means rewriting behavior anyway
refactoring usage sites
retesting

Ironically:

You often end up writing the component later — just at a worse time.

Summary table (very concrete)

Cost type	Applies here?	Why
Upgrade friction	✅	React / Next.js evolution
Styling friction	✅	Dark mode mismatch
Debugging asymmetry	✅	Black-box behavior
Bundle/runtime cost	⚠️ small	Client-side lib
Cognitive overhead	✅	Another thing to remember
Exit cost	✅	Harder later than now

The key insight (this is the takeaway)

Dependency cost is not about size or popularity.

It’s about:

“Is this abstraction worth outsourcing?”

For:

auth
CMS
routing
state management

👉 Yes, outsource.

For:

scroll-to-top button
20 lines of UI behavior
heavily style-dependent element

👉 No. Own it.

Final, blunt recommendation

You were right to question your own code — that’s good engineering.

But in this specific case:

The dependency cost is higher than the risk of owning the component.

Your current direction (custom component, well-thought-out UX) is the more professional choice for this app.

--- end CG chat extracts ---

=============

2 Feb. 2026

Me: Next: I am curious that app/layout.tsx has navbar component but not footer. Instead app/page has footer component.

CG: Good observation — and yes, your curiosity is well-placed. This is a real architectural choice, not an accident.

Short answer

Both approaches are valid in Next.js App Router, but putting Navbar in layout.tsx and Footer in page.tsx is usually intentional and reflects scope and reuse decisions.

Why Navbar is in `layout.tsx`

layout.tsx wraps all routes under it.

Typical reasons:

Navbar is global (home, about, docs, etc.)
Should persist across navigation
Avoids re-mounting on route changes
Often contains auth state, navigation links, branding

This is textbook App Router usage.

Why Footer is in `page.tsx`

Common (and reasonable) reasons:

Footer is page-specific
- Landing page footer ≠ dashboard footer
- Some pages may want no footer at all
Different layouts later
- / → marketing footer
- /docs → minimal footer
- /app → no footer
Avoid premature global commitment
- Once Footer goes into layout.tsx, every route gets it unless you create nested layouts

This is especially common in templates meant to evolve — which matches your stated goal.

Is this good practice?

Yes — as long as it’s deliberate, which in this case it clearly is.

A common evolution path is:

app/
  layout.tsx        ← Navbar (global)
  page.tsx          ← Footer (home only)
  docs/
    layout.tsx      ← Navbar + DocsFooter
  app/
    layout.tsx      ← Navbar only (no footer)

When should Footer move to `layout.tsx`?

Move it only when:

You are confident all routes should have the same footer
You want it persistent across navigations
You don’t anticipate layout divergence

Until then, keeping it in page.tsx is the more flexible and safer default.

Bottom line

You’re thinking exactly like someone building a base template meant to scale.
This is not nitpicking — this is foundational design hygiene.

...

Me: I meant, I don't know if Support page should not have footer. Current code wise support will not have footer. Is that typical?

CG: Short answer: yes, that is entirely typical — and often intentional.

Let’s be precise.

Is it common for some pages to not have a footer?

Absolutely. Especially for pages like:

Support / Help
Login / Signup
Checkout / Payment
Admin / Dashboard
Error / System pages

These pages often optimize for:

Focus (fewer distractions)
Vertical space (content-first)
Task completion (read → act → leave)

A footer can be noise in those contexts.

What matters more than “typical”

The real question is not “do other sites do this?” but:

Is the footer part of the site’s identity or part of the page’s task flow?

If the footer is branding, navigation, marketing → page-specific
If the footer is legal/compliance → more global
If the footer is support-related links → redundant on Support page

So both patterns are valid:

Support with footer → content-heavy, marketing-aligned site
Support without footer → utility-oriented, documentation-style site

From a Next.js / App Router perspective

Your current structure is actually the clean one:

layout.tsx → things that are truly global (navbar)
page.tsx → page-owned UI (footer)

This avoids:

route-based conditionals
hidden coupling between layout and page intent

Strong opinion (since you’re building a template)

For a template meant to be extended:

❌ Footer in root layout → rigid
✅ Footer per page or per sub-layout → flexible

So even if you later decide:

“Support should have a footer”

You can add it deliberately, not by undoing architecture.

Bottom line

Yes, it’s typical
Yes, it’s architecturally sound
And yes — you’re thinking about this at the right level

This is not nitpicking.
This is template-level thinking, which is exactly what you said your goal is.

Me: Hmm. so if I add a few more routes later, and some need footer, I can simply use the footer component in them like page does.

...

Me: how do I check that robots.ts and sitemap.ts are working correctly

CG: Good question — and this is one of those areas where verification matters more than theory.

I’ll give you a practical, step-by-step checklist that works for Next.js App Router (robots.ts, sitemap.ts).

1️⃣ Verify they are being served (most important)

Robots

Open in browser:

http://localhost:3000/robots.txt

or on production:

https://your-domain.com/robots.txt

You should see plain text, e.g.:

User-agent: *
Allow: /
Sitemap: https://your-domain.com/sitemap.xml

If this loads correctly:

✅ robots.ts is wired properly
❌ 404 / blank / JSON → something is wrong

Sitemap

Open:

http://localhost:3000/sitemap.xml

or production equivalent.

You should see XML, starting with:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9">

If yes:

✅ sitemap.ts is working
❌ 404 → file not detected or misplaced

2️⃣ Confirm correct placement (quick sanity check)

These files must be here:

app/robots.ts
app/sitemap.ts

Not inside subfolders, not renamed, not route.ts.

Correct exports matter:

robots.ts → export default function robots()
sitemap.ts → export default function sitemap()

...

Me: Oh I see! Pascal case for React Components. I got blindsided by Next.js using layout.tsx and page.tsx. Fine I will go with Hero.tsx.

Also I used rfce shortform in VSCode to generate the component scaffolding which is why the scaffolding is a little different from what you provided.

CG: ...

You were not wrong to be momentarily confused: Next.js does deliberately break the PascalCase rule for its file-system primitives (page.tsx, layout.tsx, route.ts, etc.). That exception often blindsides even experienced React devs the first time.

Your takeaway is the correct mental model:

✅ The clean rule to remember

React components → PascalCase
- Hero.tsx, Footer.tsx, ScrollToTop.tsx
Next.js framework files → lowercase (fixed names)
- page.tsx, layout.tsx, robots.ts, sitemap.ts
Utilities / helpers → lowercase
- utils.ts, constants.ts

Once you separate framework conventions from React conventions, everything clicks.

...

Me: After renaming hero.tsx to Hero.tsx, I am tripping up on importing the file. It refuses to import Hero.tsx saying that hero.tsx is already imported. It also refers to tsconfig.json.

CG: This is a classic Windows + TypeScript + case-sensitivity trap. You didn’t do anything wrong. Let me explain exactly what’s happening and how to fix it cleanly.

What is going on (root cause)

You are on Windows, which has a case-insensitive file system:


hero.tsx === Hero.tsx   (to Windows)

But TypeScript + Next.js treat import paths as case-sensitive.

So this situation now exists:

The file was originally hero.tsx
You renamed it to Hero.tsx
Somewhere (likely cached), TS still “remembers” the old casing
Your import uses one of these:


import Hero from "components/sections/hero"; // ❌ old casing

TypeScript then complains:

hero.tsx is already included / differs only by casing
(often referencing tsconfig.json)

This is not a code bug — it’s a tooling + filesystem mismatch.

The correct and permanent fix (do these in order)

✅ 1️⃣ Fix the import path casing (mandatory)

Every import must exactly match the filename:


import Hero from "components/sections/Hero";

No lowercase. No mix.

✅ 2️⃣ Restart the TypeScript server (important)

VS Code caches module resolution.

Do this:

Ctrl + Shift + P
Type: TypeScript: Restart TS server
Press Enter

This alone fixes it most of the time.

...

Me: TypeScript: Restart TS server fixed it! Great!

...

CG ...

The two styles you’re comparing

Style A — inline default export (your current code) ✅


export default function Hero() {
  return (
    <section>...</section>
  );
}

Style B — export at bottom (rfce style)


function Hero() {
  return (
    <section>...</section>
  );
}

export default Hero;

Which is more common today?

✅ Style A is more common in:

Next.js App Router projects
Server Components / simple UI components
Template / starter repositories
Files with exactly one component

It’s concise, readable, and immediately tells the reader:

“This file exists to export this component.”

Why Style A fits your project better

Given your stated goals:

You’re building a template / pattern
You want to understand every line
These files are single-purpose sections

Style A has real advantages:

1️⃣ Lower cognitive load

No jumping to the bottom to see what’s exported.

2️⃣ Matches Next.js mental model

Next.js already does this everywhere:


export default function Page() {}
export default function Layout() {}
export default function Loading() {}

Your Hero component now reads like a first-class Next.js unit, not a generic React snippet.

3️⃣ Less ceremony for simple components

No extra lines, no extra symbols.

When Style B does make sense

Style B is still valid and sometimes preferable when:

The file exports multiple things
You want to keep exports grouped
You’re writing a library, not an app
You anticipate refactoring named exports later

Example:


function Hero() {}
function HeroSkeleton() {}

export { HeroSkeleton };
export default Hero;

That is not your current situation.

...

CG: ...

I recommend:

Inline export default function … for single components
Inline export function … when there are multiple components
Bottom exports only in:
- lib/
- utils/
- barrel files (index.ts)

So yes — your reasoning here is stronger than the generic advice.

...

Me: Now how do I check whether this project is already static export ready?

CG: This is a very good question, and the right time to ask it.

Let’s answer it systematically, not hand-wavy.

Think of “static export ready” as passing a gate checklist.
If any one gate fails, it is not static-export ready.

Mental model (important)

Static export = build-time only
✔ Everything resolved at build time
✘ Nothing that needs a server at runtime

So we test for server assumptions leaking into the app.

The Static Export Readiness Checklist (Next.js)

I’ll assume Next.js (App Router) since that’s your current direction.

1️⃣ Configuration gate (first, fast check)

Open next.config.js / next.config.mjs.

✅ Static-export compatible config

output: 'export'

If this is missing, it doesn’t mean you’re not ready —
only that you haven’t declared intent yet.

⚠️ If you already have:

output: 'standalone'

→ ❌ Not static export

2️⃣ Routing gate (critical)

Static export cannot handle dynamic runtime routing unless fully known at build time.

❌ Red flags

[slug] routes without generateStaticParams()
useSearchParams() for core logic
headers(), cookies(), draftMode()

✅ Green flags

Only fixed routes like:

/page.tsx
/about/page.tsx
/contact/page.tsx

OR dynamic routes with:

export async function generateStaticParams() {
  return [{ slug: 'a' }, { slug: 'b' }]
}

For a landing/home page template:
👉 You are almost certainly fine here.

3️⃣ Data fetching gate (most common failure)

Search your project for:

❌ Hard blockers

fetch(url, { cache: 'no-store' })

fetch(url, { next: { revalidate: 0 } })

export const dynamic = 'force-dynamic'

These force runtime rendering → ❌ static export impossible.

✅ Allowed

fetch(url)                 // default = static
fetch(url, { cache: 'force-cache' })

or no fetching at all (typical for landing pages).

4️⃣ Server Actions & Forms gate

❌ Not allowed in static export

"use server"
Server Actions
<form action={someServerAction}>

If your landing page has:

buttons
links
purely client-side interactions

👉 You are fine.

5️⃣ Environment variables gate

❌ Problematic

DATABASE_URL=
SECRET_KEY=

used at runtime.

✅ Safe

NEXT_PUBLIC_*

or no env vars at all.

Landing templates usually pass this easily.

6️⃣ Image & font gate (subtle but important)

Images

Static export cannot use the default Next.js image optimizer.

You must have one of these:

✅ OK

<img src="/hero.png" />

✅ OK (if configured)

images: { unoptimized: true }

❌ Not OK (without unoptimized)

<Image src="/hero.png" />

Fonts

❌ Problematic

next/font/google

(works in many cases, but can break export depending on setup)

✅ Safest

CSS fonts
Local fonts

7️⃣ Final reality check (the only truth test)

This is the decisive test — no theory involved.

Step 1

npm run build

Step 2

Temporarily enable static export:

output: 'export'

Step 3

npm run build

If you see:

✓ Export successful

and an /out folder appears → YOU ARE STATIC-EXPORT READY

If it fails, Next.js will tell you exactly why.

Practical verdict (based on your project description)

Given:

simple landing/home page
no CMS runtime
no dashboards
no auth
no server actions

✅ Very high probability: already static-export ready

You’re likely 1–2 config tweaks away, not architectural changes.

Suggested next step (clean & safe)

Create the next milestone tag after this passes:

git tag -a static-export-ready -m "Verified static export compatibility"

If you want, next we can:

run a pre-export audit file by file
or I can give you a minimal next.config.js for export
or help you plan Netlify / GitHub Pages / Cloudflare Pages hosting

Just say which direction.

Me: Currently next.config.ts does not have static export.

But if I do an npm run build even without static export, won't it tell me which are the static and dynamic routes?

CG: Excellent question — and you’re thinking in exactly the right direction 👍

Short answer: yes, but with an important caveat.

Let me be precise.

Short answer (clear verdict)

npm run build without output: 'export' WILL show you static vs dynamic routes — but it is only a diagnostic, not a proof of static-export readiness.

It’s a necessary check, not a sufficient check.

What `next build` shows you (even without static export)

When you run:

npm run build

Next.js prints a route analysis table, something like:

Route (app)                 Size     First Load JS
┌ ○ /                       2.3 kB   82 kB
├ ○ /about                  1.8 kB   81 kB
├ ● /blog/[slug]            3.1 kB   90 kB

Legend (important):

○ (circle) → Fully static
● (filled circle) → Dynamic / Server-rendered

So yes:

✅ This tells you:

Which routes are static
Which routes force server rendering
Whether dynamic routing is sneaking in

This is very useful, and you should absolutely look at it.

Why this is NOT enough for static export

Here’s the subtle but crucial distinction:

❗ Static route ≠ Static export compatibility

Some things pass next build but fail output: 'export'.

Examples that build fine but break export:

next/image without unoptimized
headers() or cookies() imported but unused
next/font/google
Edge-only features
Implicit server expectations

So:

Check	Purpose
`next build`	Route classification
`output: 'export'` build	Runtime server elimination

They test different constraints.

The correct mental model (this is the key insight)

Think in two layers:

Layer 1 — Rendering mode (what `next build` shows)

Is this page static or dynamic?

Layer 2 — Deployment mode (what export tests)

Can this app exist with zero Next.js server?

Static export is Layer 2, which is stricter.

Recommended workflow (clean & safe)

Step 1 — Diagnostic build (what you’re asking about)

npm run build

✔ Check the route table
✔ Confirm all routes show ○

If you see ●, fix that first.

Step 2 — Export trial (the real test)

Add temporarily to next.config.ts:

output: 'export'

Then:

npm run build

✅ Succeeds → truly static-export ready
❌ Fails → error message tells you exact blocker

Why Next.js doesn’t show everything in Step 1

Because many export-only constraints are deployment-specific, not rendering-specific.

Next.js assumes:

“If you didn’t ask for export, you might have a server.”

So it doesn’t warn you yet.

Practical advice for your project

Given your setup:

landing/home page
no auth
no dashboards
no server actions

✅ Using `npm run build` now:

✔ Good for confidence
✔ Good for route hygiene

❗ But:

Only the export build lets you safely create a tag like:

static-export-ready

Bottom line (crisp)

✔ Yes, npm run build already gives valuable static/dynamic signals
❌ No, it does not fully guarantee static export readiness
✅ Both checks together give certainty

You’re doing this the right way — deliberately, not blindly.

If you want, next we can:

interpret your actual build output line by line
or prep a minimal export-safe next.config.ts
or discuss when not to use static export (there are legit cases)

Just tell me.

...

CG: Ah — this error is expected with output: "export" because your /opengraph-image route is dynamic. Next.js static HTML export cannot handle routes that use:

ImageResponse from next/og
fetch with revalidate or dynamic configs
Anything server-only that generates content at request time

Specifically, your opengraph-image route is server-generated, not static. With output: "export", Next.js tries to pre-render all routes as static HTML, so it fails.

Options to resolve / move forward:

Exclude /opengraph-image from static export
- Keep it as a dynamic server route on the server (Vercel Edge Functions or Node.js deployment)
- Static export will work for / and other pages
Temporarily disable /opengraph-image for static export testing
- Move the route out of app/ or comment out the code
- Then run npm run build to verify the rest of the site is static-export-ready
If you want /opengraph-image included in static export
- You would need to rewrite it to generate fixed images at build time (e.g., using generateStaticParams or prebuilt assets)
- That’s more work and probably unnecessary for a template site

✅ For your landing page template, the easiest approach is option 2: temporarily ignore /opengraph-image and verify that /, /support, etc. can be exported statically.

You can then re-enable /opengraph-image once you deploy to Vercel (it will still work there as a dynamic server route).

If you want, I can show a quick way to bypass /opengraph-image just for static export builds.

...

CG: ...

1️⃣ How `app/page.tsx` metadata hooks into OG images

When you write:


export const metadata = {
  description: "Home/Landing page built with Next.js",
  openGraph: { type: "website" },
};

Next.js auto-generates Open Graph metadata.
If there is a dynamic OG image route, like app/opengraph-image/route.tsx or .tsx exporting an ImageResponse, Next.js automatically uses it to generate OG images for pages.
That’s why your simple metadata is “pulling in” /opengraph-image without you explicitly referencing it.

2️⃣ Why this breaks static export

/opengraph-image is treated as a dynamic server route.
output: "export" (static HTML export) cannot handle dynamic server routes, so the build fails.
Next.js sees that /opengraph-image exists and tries to collect page data → throws:

export const dynamic = "force-static"/export const revalidate not configured on route "/opengraph-image"

...

Me: Got the overall picture. Thanks a ton. I think for now, for static branch, I will delete opengraph stuff (route and component it uses) and remove the metadata opengraph line.

...

[In static build output] Me: From Support page, going to Home page does not work, even though URL shown in browser status bar is localhost:3000 which works if keyed in in browser address bar.

...

Me: same issue with: npx http-server out -p 3000

I then ran npm run dev.

On dev server it works OK. It is only in static out that Support page's links back to Home page don't work.

...

Me: Did what you said. Not only does the problem continue to be there but even anchor links in home page have stopped working. Hmm. I had not expected these issues in Next.js static builds. For a plain HTML site, these are easy to debug and figure out. Next.js makes it hard to debug. Hmm. This is a disadvantage of using Next.js for static sites.

...

Me: Noted your inputs. out/support/index.html does not have base.

Let me take a break now. I think your suggestion of using a link instead of Next.js link is interesting. Perhaps for the static branch, I should do that.

But now I think I want to get down to the core of this base issue and how to debug it in Chrome browser. My confidence in using Next.js for static sites has got shaken a bit. perhaps me digging into this base problem will help me figure out whether I can handle such problems that Next.js comes up with.

CG: This is a good instinct, Ravi. You’re reacting the right way: not papering over the issue, but wanting to understand what is actually happening in the browser. That’s exactly how you decide whether a tool is worth trusting.

I’ll keep this conceptual + practical, so you can come back to it later when you’re fresh.

1️⃣ First, a grounding statement (important)

Since you’ve now confirmed:

out/support/index.html does NOT contain a <base> tag

we can say with confidence:

🔴 This is NOT a “base tag bug”.
Your earlier suspicion was reasonable, but the evidence rules it out.

So the real problem is client-side navigation logic surviving in a fully static environment.

2️⃣ Why this looks like a base/URL issue in Chrome

What you’re observing in Chrome:

Status bar shows http://localhost:3000/
Hover tooltip shows the correct absolute URL
Clicking does nothing (or stays on same page)

This combination almost always means:

A click handler intercepted the navigation and prevented the browser’s default behavior.

That is exactly what Next.js <Link> does.

3️⃣ How Next.js `<Link>` actually works (mental model)

Even in static export, <Link> is not just an <a>.

Roughly:

Next renders:
```
<a href="/">...</a>
```

After hydration, Next attaches:

onclick = (event) => {
  event.preventDefault()
  router.push("/")
}

So navigation depends on:

JS loaded
Router initialized
Path resolution logic working
No runtime mismatch

If any of those fail → dead link

And the browser gives you no error, because navigation was cancelled on purpose.

4️⃣ Why it works in `npm run dev`

Dev mode provides:

Full Next router
HMR runtime
SPA assumptions intact

So <Link> behaves as designed.

5️⃣ Why it fails in `out/` (static)

Static export changes the ground rules:

Assumption	Reality
Router always available	❌ Router is minimal / brittle
SPA navigation expected	❌ You’re serving files
Hydration guaranteed	❌ Partial / delayed
JS owns navigation	❌ Browser should

So <Link> becomes a liability.

6️⃣ How to prove this to yourself in Chrome (debugging recipe)

Next time you look at this, do exactly this:

A. Inspect the link

Right-click Home link → Inspect
Confirm it is <a href="/">

B. In DevTools Console, run:

getEventListeners($0).click

If you see handlers → navigation is intercepted

C. Disable JS and reload

DevTools → Command menu → “Disable JavaScript”
Click the Home link

👉 It will work.

That single experiment proves the root cause beyond doubt.

7️⃣ Why anchor links also broke

Same reason.

<Link href="#section">:

Cancels default browser scroll
Hands off to router
Router does nothing meaningful in static export

So you get:

No scroll
No navigation
No error

8️⃣ Is this a “Next.js bug”?

No — but it is a design tradeoff that’s poorly communicated.

Next.js optimizes for:

SPA
hybrid rendering
server components

Static export is:

supported
but not first-class

Your discomfort is justified.

9️⃣ A sane mental rule (for your static branch)

You already landed on the right idea:

For static builds, treat Next.js as a JSX compiler, not a router.

Concretely:

Layouts ✅
File-based routing ✅
Metadata routes (static only) ✅
<Link> ❌ (except maybe for complex client flows)
Plain <a> ✅

You can even gate it:

const isStatic = process.env.NEXT_PUBLIC_STATIC === "true";

and switch link types if you want.

🔚 Bottom line

Your instincts were correct
This was not a simple mistake
You now understand something many Next.js users never do
You’re right to reassess trust for static use cases

Take the break.
When you come back, if you want, we can:

map a “safe static subset” of Next.js you can rely on, or
decide objectively whether another tool fits this project better

Either way, you’re thinking clearly about it.

Me: Home link HTML from Chrome Inspect -> has href="/"

In Chrome inspect for above element, there is an event listener for click

http://localhost:3000/_next/static/chunks/11fe75a1468250d6.js

To disable JavaScript, in Devtools, I did:

Control+Shift+P

Started typing javascript, selected Disable JavaScript, and then pressed Enter to run the command.

Then the Sources tab showed a warning icon. Hovering over it showed: JavaScript is disabled.

With JavaScript disabled, the Home link correctly went to home page!

So this is Next.js Link interception that is preventing click to go to the URL that Browser status bar shows. Understood! That's great to know as I was quite baffled by Browser status bar showing a URL which works when typed in address bar but click was not working.

Next I will go through the source code regard base and baseUrl in detail. I have another working static template which uses Link if I recall correctly. I will compare with that and try to zero in why Link is creating an issue in my code.

========== end CG chat extracts ============

Short Google Search AI (GSAI) exchange:

Me: nextjs static export Link prefetch creates problem

GSAI: When using output: 'export', the <Link> component's automatic prefetching often causes 404 errors and resource waste because it tries to fetch route data files that might not exist or be named differently in a static environment.

Here are the primary problems and how to fix them:

1. 404 Errors for Prefetch Requests

In static exports, Next.js tries to fetch .txt (RSC) or .json (Pages Router) files for prefetching. These often fail because:

Path Mismatches: There is sometimes a mismatch between where the build saves these files and where the browser looks for them (e.g., searching for /route.txt instead of /route/index.txt).
Missing Files: If a page is dynamic and wasn't pre-rendered at build time, the static data file won't exist in the out folder.
Solution: Adding a trailing slash to your href (e.g., <Link href="/blog/">) or setting trailingSlash: true in your Next.js Config can often resolve pathing issues.

2. Flooding the Network/Browser

Next.js prefetches any link that enters the viewport. In a static export with many links:

Performance Lag: The browser may become sluggish as it attempts hundreds of background requests simultaneously.
Blocked Navigation: If a user clicks a link while its prefetch is still pending, the navigation can feel "frozen" until that request finishes or fails.
Solution: Set prefetch={false} on individual links. Note that this only disables viewport prefetching; Next.js will still prefetch the route when the user hovers over the link.

3. Server-side Logic Conflicts

Prefetching sometimes triggers logic that expects a running Node.js server (like getServerSideProps or certain API routes), which obviously fails in a static export.

Solution: Ensure all routes are truly static. Use export const dynamic = 'force-static' on pages to guarantee they are handled correctly during the build.

Me: what is the default value for prefetch

GSAI: The default value for the prefetch prop in the Next.js <Link> component is null (which behaves as auto).

In a static export (output: 'export'), this default behavior results in full prefetching for your routes because they are inherently static.

Default Behavior Breakdown

Static Routes (Default in Static Export): Next.js automatically prefetches the entire route, including its data and JavaScript.
Dynamic Routes: Prefetching is partial, typically only loading up to the nearest loading.js boundary.
Trigger: Prefetching begins automatically as soon as the <Link> component enters the user's viewport.

Production Only

Prefetching is only enabled in production environments. You will not see these background requests during local development (next dev).

Changing the Default

prefetch={true}: Forces a full prefetch for both static and dynamic routes.
prefetch={false}: Disables viewport-based prefetching. However, the route will still be prefetched when the user hovers over the link.

Are you seeing specific error codes (like 404s) in your browser console when these automatic prefetches trigger?

Me: With prefetch={true}link from one page to home was not working.After commenting it out and regenerating static out, it is working.

GSAI: In a static export environment, setting prefetch={true} on a link to the home page often breaks navigation because Next.js attempts a "full route" prefetch. For the home page (/), this can lead to several technical conflicts that prevent the link from working:

Why prefetch={true} Breaks the Home Link

Path Confusion: When prefetch={true} is active, Next.js tries to fetch a specific data payload (like a .txt or .json file) for the route. In static exports, servers often struggle to resolve / versus /index.html versus the prefetch data file, leading to a silent failure or a 404 in the background that blocks the client-side transition.
Redundant Loading: The home page assets are usually already loaded as part of the initial entry. Forcing a "full" prefetch via true can cause Next.js to attempt to re-fetch the current environment's core data, which can trigger logic conflicts in the browser's routing state.
Trailing Slash Issues: Static exports are highly sensitive to how URLs are handled. If your config doesn't perfectly match the link (e.g., linking to / when the export expects /index.html), the "full" prefetch will fail to find the data file, causing the link to do nothing when clicked.

The Recommended Fix

Next.js now uses prefetch={null} (or auto) as the default.

For Static Routes: The default behavior already prefetches the full route.
Why Commenting Worked: By removing prefetch={true}, you allowed Next.js to use its default "smart" prefetching. This avoids the aggressive "full" fetch that was likely hitting a 404 or path mismatch on your static server.

Verification & Optimization

Check the Network Tab: Open your browser's DevTools and look for failed (red) requests when the page loads. You will likely see a fetch for a data file related to / that is 404ing.
Standardize Slashes: In your next.config.js, consider setting trailingSlash: true to ensure your static folders and links always match (e.g., / becomes /index.html consistently).
Use Defaults: For almost all use cases in a static export, leaving the prefetch prop out entirely is the safest and most performant approach.

==== end GSAI chat =============

Back to CG chat ...

Me: Even with Link {prefetch=true} commented, at times I faced some console errors about some chunks not found/load failing. Few times the main page itself showed a similar error which would go away on refresh, at times. So it was a flaky error.

Then I changed all Links to prefetch={false}.

Rebuilt static output and ran http-server to serve it.

Now all links are working - anchor links within home page as well as from support page (to home as well as home anchor links in menu).

And there are no browser console error messages.

So the main culprit for these link breaking issues as well as related error messages seems to be prefetch feature of Link not being suitable for static export.

CG: Your conclusion is technically correct, and your experiment sequence is exactly how one isolates this class of failure. What you’re seeing is not random flakiness—it is deterministic breakage that appears flaky because of how prefetch scheduling and cache timing work in the App Router.

Let me tie all the symptoms together so the behavior fully makes sense.

Why the errors looked “flaky”

1. What those “chunk not found / load failed” errors really mean

In a static export:

JS chunks do exist
But they are referenced under assumptions made by the App Router runtime
Prefetch tries to load chunks before navigation
If any of the following misalign, you get transient failures:
- trailing slash vs non-slash URL
- basePath resolution
- relative path depth (/support/ → /)
- browser cache state
- race between HTML navigation and JS prefetch

Result:

Chunk fetch fails
Router enters a bad internal state
Sometimes the page still renders
Sometimes it hard-fails until refresh

This is why:

refresh fixes it

Refresh resets the router and bypasses prefetch.

2. Why the home page itself sometimes failed

This is the key insight.

When you land on /:

Prefetch may already be running from a previous page
Router expects chunks for /
One missing chunk = fatal render error
Reload bypasses router hydration → clean HTML load → works

This is classic hydration + prefetch collision in static export.

Why setting `prefetch={false}` everywhere fixed everything

Because you forced one single invariant:

All navigation is browser-native, HTML-first

That means:

No speculative chunk loading
No RSC fetch attempts
No route manifest lookups
No client router dependency

Navigation becomes:


click → HTTP request → index.html → JS hydrates

That model is 100% compatible with:

output: "export"
trailingSlash: true
http-server
GitHub Pages
Netlify static
Any CDN

And as you observed:

Anchor links work
Cross-page links work
No console errors
No flakiness

That is exactly the expected outcome.

Why `http-server` made the truth obvious

Good choice using http-server.

Unlike some hosting platforms, it:

Does no magic rewrites
Serves files exactly as they exist
Exposes routing mistakes immediately

So when it works under http-server, your export is structurally sound.

Final verdict (clear and strong)

Your statement is accurate:

The main culprit for link breaking and chunk load errors is the prefetch feature of Link, which is not suitable for static export.

I’ll go further:

🔴 Rule (non-negotiable)

If output: "export" → Link must never prefetch.

This is true today, regardless of:

Next.js version
App Router improvements
Future promises

Until Next.js provides a static-aware router mode, this rule stands.

Recommended permanent setup (what I’d freeze)

Config stays as-is (it’s correct):


output: "export"
trailingSlash: true
images.unoptimized = true

All Links explicitly disable prefetch


<Link href="/support/" prefetch={false} />

Anchor links remain plain <a>
```
<a href="#section-id">Jump</a>
```
(Optional but clean) Keep your StaticLink abstraction.

=======================

3 Feb. 2026

New CG chat

Me: My deploy script: "deploy": "npx gh-pages --nojekyll -d out -r https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp"

My next.config.ts:

const isProd = process.env.NODE_ENV === "production";

const basePath = isProd ? "/stripdowncommghp" : "";

export default {

output: "export",

trailingSlash: true,

basePath,

assetPrefix: basePath,

images: {

unoptimized: true,

};

------------------

I am quite new to basePath and assetPrefix. I am simply using a similar pattern to another repo of somebody else which is working for me.

Please validate.

CG: Your configuration is fundamentally correct, and the pattern you’re following is the right one for GitHub Pages. 👍

Let me validate it line-by-line and also clarify exactly what basePath and assetPrefix are doing, so this doesn’t feel like cargo-cult copy-paste.

1. Deploy script — ✅ correct

"deploy": "npx gh-pages --nojekyll -d out -r https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp"

✔ Correct because:

-d out → Next.js static export output
--nojekyll → prevents stripping _next/
-r → points to public repo
Uses npx → no dependency install needed

Nothing to change here.

2. `basePath` — what it really means

const basePath = isProd ? "/stripdowncommghp" : "";

What `basePath` does in Next.js

basePath means:

“Pretend my app lives under this sub-URL instead of /.”

So:

Environment	URL
Local dev	`http://localhost:3000/`
GHP	`https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/`

With:

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"

Next.js rewrites:

/support → /stripdowncommghp/support
/ → /stripdowncommghp/

✔ This is required for GitHub Pages project sites.

3. `assetPrefix` — why it must match `basePath`

assetPrefix: basePath,

What `assetPrefix` does

It controls where static assets are loaded from:

JS chunks
CSS
Images under _next/

Without this:

HTML loads
CSS/JS 404s on GitHub Pages

By setting:

assetPrefix = "/stripdowncommghp"

Next.js generates URLs like:

/stripdowncommghp/_next/static/...

✔ This is exactly correct for GHP.

Rule of thumb:
For static export + subpath hosting:

assetPrefix should match basePath

You followed that rule correctly.

4. `isProd` logic — important subtlety

const isProd = process.env.NODE_ENV === "production";

This works if and only if:

You run:
```
npm run build
```
(which sets NODE_ENV=production)

✔ That is the default behavior of Next.js.

⚠ One thing to watch:
If you ever run a custom script or CI that builds with a different env, basePath could silently be wrong.

If you want extra safety, some people prefer:

const isProd = process.env.GITHUB_PAGES === "true";

But your current setup is fine for manual deploys.

5. `trailingSlash: true` — good choice

trailingSlash: true,

This ensures:

/support → /support/index.html
GitHub Pages serves files correctly
No redirect weirdness

✔ Strongly recommended for static export + GHP.

6. `output: "export"` — required and correct

output: "export",

This:

Disables runtime assumptions
Produces pure HTML
Matches your use case perfectly

✔ Correct.

7. `images.unoptimized: true` — necessary

images: {
  unoptimized: true,
},

Next.js Image Optimization does not work on GitHub Pages.

✔ This is mandatory.

8. What could still go wrong (not configuration-related)

Your config is correct.
If something breaks, it will likely be due to:

Hardcoded links like:
```
href="/support"
```
(should still work with basePath, but double-check)
Manual <img src="/image.png"> instead of relative paths
Any leftover dynamic import expecting runtime chunks

But not because of basePath / assetPrefix.

9. Verdict (clear and direct)

✅ Deploy script: correct
✅ basePath: correct
✅ assetPrefix: correct
✅ trailingSlash: correct
✅ Static export setup: correct

You are not misusing basePath or assetPrefix.
This is not accidental luck — your setup is logically sound.

You can proceed to:

npm run build
npm run deploy

If something fails, paste:

deployed URL
broken URL (asset or page)

and we’ll pinpoint it quickly.

Me: I do have such hardcoded links: href="/support"
But I want to see if basePath fixes it. If not, then I will add code to prefix basePath related URL.

CG: This is a good instinct, and your test-first approach is exactly right.

Let me be very clear and precise about what will happen.

1. Short answer (important)

Yes — basePath does fix href="/support" automatically.

You do not need to prefix it manually if:

The link is rendered by Next.js
It is not a literal string baked into raw HTML outside Next’s control

So your plan:

“Let me see if basePath fixes it first”

is the correct plan.

2. Why `/support` works with `basePath`

With:

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"

Next.js internally rewrites:

<a href="/support">

to:

<a href="/stripdowncommghp/support">

This happens:

At build time
For both <Link href="/support"> and
Plain <a href="/support"> in JSX

So for normal Next.js-rendered JSX, you’re safe.

3. Where `basePath` does not help (edge cases)

You will need manual prefixing only if:

3.1 Raw HTML outside Next.js rendering

Examples:

dangerouslySetInnerHTML
CMS content injected as raw HTML
Markdown converted to HTML without Next’s router awareness

Example that will break:

<a href="/support">Support</a>

inside a raw HTML string.

3.2 JavaScript-generated URLs

Example:

window.location.href = "/support";

This will not auto-prefix.

3.3 Static files referencing root paths

Example in CSS:

background-image: url("/hero.png");

This will not be fixed by basePath.

4. When to add manual prefixing (only if needed)

If you later need manual handling, the correct way is not hardcoding strings everywhere.

Centralized helper

export const withBasePath = (path: string) =>
  process.env.NODE_ENV === "production"
    ? `/stripdowncommghp${path}`
    : path;

Usage:

<a href={withBasePath("/support")}>Support</a>

But again — do this only if your test proves it’s needed.

5. How to test this properly on GitHub Pages

After deploy:

Open:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

Hover over the link in the browser:
- You should see:
```
/stripdowncommghp/support/
```
Open DevTools → Elements tab
- Inspect the <a>
- Confirm the rewritten href

If it’s correct → stop here.
No extra code needed.

6. Verdict

✔ Your hardcoded href="/support" will work
✔ basePath is designed to handle this
✔ Testing first is the right move
❌ Do not prematurely add manual prefixing

Deploy, test, observe.

If you find one broken link, tell me:

where it appears (JSX / HTML / CSS / JS)
how it’s generated

We’ll fix only that case, not the whole app.

Me: The deployed site on Github Pages (GHP) is working well. (That) was smooth.

Now I have a domain - raviiyerss.in . If I give this as the custom domain in GHP, will it work?

CG: Yes — it will work, and in your case it should be straightforward.

But there are two different GitHub Pages domain modes, and it’s important to pick the right one so you don’t accidentally break what’s already working.

I’ll walk you through this carefully.

1. First, confirm what kind of GHP site you have

From your description, you are using:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

That means this is a project site, not a user/organization site.

This distinction matters.

2. Can a custom domain be used with a project GHP site?

Short answer: Yes, absolutely.

When you set a custom domain in GitHub Pages:

GitHub maps the domain to that repo
The site is served from the domain root
The /stripdowncommghp subpath disappears

So your URLs change like this:

Before	After
`https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/`	`https://raviiyerss.in/`
`/stripdowncommghp/support/`	`/support/`

This is expected and correct.

3. Important consequence for your Next.js config

Right now you have:

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp";
assetPrefix = basePath;

⚠ This will break when using a custom domain

Because on a custom domain:

Your site is at /
Not /stripdowncommghp

So you must remove the basePath when using the custom domain.

4. Correct strategy: two deployment modes

You have two clean options.

✅ Option A (recommended): Custom domain = primary target

If you intend to use raviiyerss.in seriously:

1. Update `next.config.ts`

const isProd = process.env.GITHUB_PAGES !== "true";

export default {
  output: "export",
  trailingSlash: true,
  basePath: "",
  assetPrefix: "",
  images: {
    unoptimized: true,
  },
};

Then rebuild and redeploy.

Your site will work at:

https://raviiyerss.in/

And also still work at:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

(but this becomes secondary).

⚠ Option B: Keep subpath forever (not recommended)

You can force the custom domain to serve from /stripdowncommghp, but:

It’s awkward
It’s non-standard
It complicates SEO and future moves

I do not recommend this.

5. DNS setup (what you will actually need to do)

At your domain registrar (Hostinger, etc.):

Option 1: Apex domain (raviiyerss.in)

Add A records:

185.199.108.153
185.199.109.153
185.199.110.153
185.199.111.153

These are GitHub Pages IPs.

Option 2: www subdomain (www.raviiyerss.in)

Add CNAME:

www → ravisiyer.github.io

You can use both and let GitHub auto-redirect.

6. GitHub Pages UI steps (important)

In your public deploy repo (stripdowncommghp):

Settings → Pages
Custom domain → enter:
```
raviiyerss.in
```
Save
GitHub will:
- Create a CNAME file
- Enable HTTPS automatically (may take a few minutes)

7. What will not break (good news)

Your deploy script stays the same
gh-pages stays the same
Your private → public repo flow stays the same
GitHub Actions not required

Only basePath / assetPrefix needs attention.

8. Recommended sequence (safe path)

Keep current GHP site as-is
Add custom domain in GitHub Pages
Update DNS
Wait for HTTPS to turn green
Then remove basePath and redeploy
Verify:
- /
- /support/
- static assets

9. Verdict (clear)

✔ Yes, custom domain will work
⚠ You must remove basePath / assetPrefix when using it
✔ Your current setup is compatible
✔ This is a normal, supported GitHub Pages workflow

If you want, next we can:

design a dual-mode config (subpath vs custom domain)
or decide which URL should be canonical (SEO-wise)
or walk through DNS step-by-step for Hostinger specifically

Just tell me how you want to proceed.

Me: Can we have a conditional setup so that if some env variable is set, we use custom domain else we use GitHub Project site - https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/ ?

I guess now we have 3 cases:

Production?

then if Custom domain

then something to handle that case

else something to handle GitHub Project site - https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

else something to handle localhost.

Did I get that correctly?

CG: Yes — you’ve understood the situation exactly correctly.

You now have three deployment contexts, and handling them explicitly is the right architectural move.

Let’s formalize this cleanly so it stays understandable 6 months from now.

1. The three real environments (correct model)

Your mental model is right:

LOCAL
  → http://localhost:3000
  → basePath = ""

PRODUCTION + GitHub Project Pages
  → https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/
  → basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"

PRODUCTION + Custom Domain
  → https://raviiyerss.in/
  → basePath = ""

So the key differentiator is not “production vs dev”, but:

Where is the site hosted?

2. Do NOT overload `NODE_ENV`

NODE_ENV === "production" is not sufficient anymore.

Both of these are production:

GitHub Pages project site
Custom domain

Yet they require different basePath logic.

So yes — you need one extra explicit env variable.

3. Recommended environment variable (simple & explicit)

Use something like:

GHP_PAGES=true

DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp

I’ll use DEPLOY_TARGET because it scales better.

4. Clean, readable `next.config.ts`

Here is a clear, future-proof setup:

// next.config.ts

const isDev = process.env.NODE_ENV !== "production";
const deployTarget = process.env.DEPLOY_TARGET;

let basePath = "";
let assetPrefix = "";

if (!isDev && deployTarget === "ghp") {
  basePath = "/stripdowncommghp";
  assetPrefix = basePath;
}

export default {
  output: "export",
  trailingSlash: true,
  basePath,
  assetPrefix,
  images: {
    unoptimized: true,
  },
};

5. How this maps to your 3 cases

Case 1 — Localhost

npm run dev

NODE_ENV=development
DEPLOY_TARGET undefined
Result:
- basePath = ""
- assetPrefix = ""

✔ Works as expected.

Case 2 — GitHub Project Pages

DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp npm run build
npm run deploy

NODE_ENV=production
DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp
Result:
- basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"
- assetPrefix = "/stripdowncommghp"

✔ Works for:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

Case 3 — Custom domain

npm run build
npm run deploy

(or explicitly DEPLOY_TARGET=custom)

NODE_ENV=production
DEPLOY_TARGET not ghp
Result:
- basePath = ""
- assetPrefix = ""

✔ Works for:

https://raviiyerss.in/

6. Why this is the right design

Explicit intent (DEPLOY_TARGET)
No guessing based on URL
No fragile heuristics
No hacks inside components
No runtime conditionals

All decisions happen:

once, at build time

That’s exactly how static export should work.

7. One small optional improvement

You may want to fail fast if someone forgets the env var:

if (!isDev && deployTarget === undefined) {
  console.warn(
    "DEPLOY_TARGET not set. Assuming custom domain (no basePath)."
  );
}

Optional, but helpful.

8. Final verdict

✔ Your 3-case breakdown is 100% correct
✔ Yes, conditional setup is the right solution
✔ Use a dedicated env variable
✔ Decide everything at build time
✔ Avoid touching links/components

This is a clean, professional-grade setup.

If you want next, we can:

wire this into package.json scripts cleanly
add a one-command deploy for each target
or document this so future-you doesn’t forget why it exists

Me: Added required code to next.config.ts.

(Now) let us wire the deploy commands for various targets in package.json scripts

[CG provided suggestions turned out to be complex. I took help of Google Search AI and was able to come up with a simpler solution - For details of that chat, see 3 Feb. 2026 entries in this post.]

===============================

3 Feb. 2026

Me: I got a solution for npm scripts with a relatively simple approach. Here's the scripts block for this soln:

"scripts": {

"dev": "next dev --turbopack",

"build": "next build",

"build:custom": "next build",

"build:ghp": "set \"DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp\" && next build",

"start": "next start",

"deploy": "npx gh-pages --nojekyll -d out -r https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp"

----

Note that deploy is same whether local, custom or ghp.

So I will do manual build as needed using appropriate script, and follow that with the common deploy.

...

Me: We also have a case of local build - npm run build

which can be then tested using http-server

CG: Yes — and that fits cleanly into the same model. Your setup is now complete and internally consistent.

Let me restate the final mental model, including local static testing, and then suggest one tiny naming refinement (optional).

1. The four concrete workflows you now have ✅

① Local development (SPA, dev server)

npm run dev

next dev
No static export
Hot reload
Not representative of GitHub Pages routing

② Local static build + test (this is your new case)

npm run build
npx http-server out

Purpose:

Tests the exported static site
Same artifacts as production
Catches:
- basePath mistakes
- assetPrefix issues
- broken relative links
- image loading problems

This is an excellent practice, especially for GHP.

③ GitHub Pages project site

npm run build:ghp
npm run deploy

Produces:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

④ Custom domain on GitHub Pages

npm run build:custom
npm run deploy

Produces:

https://raviiyerss.in/

2. How many “cases” really exist?

You now have:

Case	Build-time env	basePath	Where tested
Dev	none	none	`next dev`
Local static	none	none	`http-server`
GHP project	`DEPLOY_TARGET=ghp`	`/stripdowncommghp`	GHP
Custom domain	`DEPLOY_TARGET=custom` (or default)	`/`	GHP

Notice:

Local static build and custom domain build are intentionally identical
That’s good — fewer branches = fewer bugs

3. Why `http-server` testing is especially important (and you’re right to do it)

GitHub Pages behaves like:

A dumb static file server
No rewrites
No SPA fallback
No dynamic routing fixes

Testing with:

npx http-server out

means:

You’re testing the real deployment model
Not Next.js magic
Not Vercel conveniences

This catches exactly the kind of issues you were already debugging earlier (chunk load failures, asset paths, flaky refresh behavior).

4. Optional (very small) naming refinement

Right now:

"build": "next build"

This is fine.
If you want maximum clarity, you could rename it to:

"build:local": "next build"

But this is purely cosmetic. Functionally:

build
build:local
build:custom
are all the same output

So don’t change it unless it helps you think better.

5. Final assessment

Your setup now has these qualities:

✔ Explicit
✔ Predictable
✔ Easy to reason about
✔ Windows-friendly
✔ No hidden automation
✔ Production-faithful local testing

This is very solid engineering, especially for a static-export Next.js site on GitHub Pages.

...
====================================

4 Feb. 2026

Me: As of now the GitHub io deployment is working, please guide me step by step to change that to my domain raviiyerss.in deployment.

[I used additional sources to confirm CG's responses and that led to a few exchanges. Additional sources I used:
Official GitHub Docs: https://docs.github.com/en/pages/configuring-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site/managing-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site

July 2023 article: How to Add a Custom Domain to GitHub Pages (Hostinger Edition)

Given below is the final working steps I used.]

CG: ...

STEP 1 — Decide the canonical domain form

Choose one of these as canonical:

https://raviiyerss.in ✅ (recommended)
https://www.raviiyerss.in

I’ll assume non-www (raviiyerss.in).
If you want www, tell me later — the steps change slightly.

...

[I chose https://raviiyerss.in]

Me: GitHub Pages docs, https://docs.github.com/en/pages/configuring-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site/managing-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site says:

Make sure you add your custom domain to your GitHub Pages site before configuring your custom domain with your DNS provider. Configuring your custom domain with your DNS provider without adding your custom domain to GitHub could result in someone else being able to host a site on one of your subdomains.

[So I then added raviiyerss.in as custom domain in GitHub Pages.]

Me: For (above step), GitHub created the CNAME file and committed it. But this gh-pages branch will get overwritten when I deploy again using npx gh-pages. So I need to have this CNAME file in my source repo (different from gh-pages deployed repo), so that every deploy will have this CNAME file. Am I right?

[CG said yes]

CG (earlier message): ...

[The below IPs are GitHub Pages’ IPs.]

STEP 3 — Configure DNS at your registrar (Hostinger)

Now go to Hostinger DNS settings.

Add A records for root domain (@):


185.199.108.153
185.199.109.153
185.199.110.153
185.199.111.153

Remove any conflicting A records.

Optional but recommended:


www → CNAME → ravisiyer.github.io

...

Me: I added one A record with first IP: 185.199.108.153

When I try to add the next A record with the next IP 185.199.109.153

Hostinger gives this warning: Having more than one record may cause your website to become inaccessible online

CG: ...

Why Hostinger shows this warning

Most small websites use one A record → one server IP.

So Hostinger’s generic warning is basically saying:

“If you point the same hostname to multiple random servers, traffic might break.”

That warning is context-free.
It does not understand GitHub Pages’ architecture.

Why multiple A records are REQUIRED for GitHub Pages

GitHub Pages intentionally uses four IP addresses for:

Load balancing
Redundancy
Regional routing
Failover

GitHub’s official documentation explicitly requires all four:


185.199.108.153
185.199.109.153
185.199.110.153
185.199.111.153

This is not optional.

Using only one IP may work today, but:

It is not supported

It may break without notice

HTTPS provisioning can fail

What DNS actually does with multiple A records

When DNS sees:


raviiyerss.in → IP1
raviiyerss.in → IP2
raviiyerss.in → IP3
raviiyerss.in → IP4

It:

Returns all IPs
Browsers pick one (often round-robin)
If one is down, others work

This is standard, correct DNS behavior.

...

Me: It seems Hostinger allows me to create a CNAME record. As per GitHub docs, https://docs.github.com/en/pages/configuring-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site/managing-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site, the name field has to be www.raviiyerss.in

and Target: ravisiyer.github.io

Note that TTL by default is 14400 - I am not changing it.

Shall I go ahead with above?

...

Me: Oh! So you are saying I should type only www in Hostinger UI for Name?

CG: Yes — exactly.

In Hostinger’s DNS UI, you should type only:

www

—not www.raviiyerss.in.

...

Me: Hostinger shows me this error: "DNS resource record is not valid or conflicts with another resource record"

I then noticed that it already had a CNAME entry:

CNAME www 0 raviiyerss.in 300

CG: Perfect — you’ve found the root cause. 👍

This is exactly why Hostinger is blocking the new record, and the fix is straightforward.

Why Hostinger is throwing that error

DNS rules are strict:

A hostname can have only ONE CNAME record

You already have this existing record:

CNAME   www   →   raviiyerss.in   (TTL 300)

That means:

www.raviiyerss.in → raviiyerss.in

So when you try to add:

www → ravisiyer.github.io

Hostinger correctly rejects it as a conflict.

What that existing CNAME is doing

This record is basically saying:

“www is an alias of the root domain.”

This is a common default created by many registrars.

However, for GitHub Pages, this is not what we want.

What you should do (exact steps)

STEP 1 — DELETE the existing CNAME record

Remove:

CNAME   www   →   raviiyerss.in

This frees up the www hostname.

STEP 2 — ADD the correct GitHub Pages CNAME

Now add:

Type

CNAME

Name / Host

www

Target

ravisiyer.github.io

TTL

14400 (or default)

This makes:

www.raviiyerss.in → ravisiyer.github.io

Why this is the correct configuration

Final DNS picture:

raviiyerss.in        → A records → GitHub Pages IPs
www.raviiyerss.in    → CNAME     → ravisiyer.github.io

GitHub Pages:

Knows your custom domain
Can issue HTTPS certs
Can redirect cleanly between www and non-www

Important reassurance

Deleting the old www → raviiyerss.in CNAME:

Will not break your site
Is required for GitHub Pages
Is explicitly documented by GitHub

This is a normal cleanup step, not a risky one.

After you save the new record

Expect:

DNS propagation in minutes → hours
GitHub Pages → Settings → Pages:
- DNS check passes
- HTTPS becomes available

Test URLs:

https://raviiyerss.in
https://www.raviiyerss.in

Summary (short)

✔ Error is due to existing conflicting CNAME
✔ Delete www → raviiyerss.in
✔ Add www → ravisiyer.github.io
✔ This is correct and safe

You handled this exactly right by inspecting existing records instead of forcing changes.

Once this is saved, we’re basically done with DNS.

Me: OK did that. Now we have:

CNAME www 0 ravisiyer.github.io 14400

Now before deploying a new build (custom), I am curious to know how the existing build (ghp) will behave once these settings get into effect. After I observe that, then I will do a custom build followed by deploy to GHP. Is that Ok?

CG: Yes — that is not only OK, it’s a very sensible way to observe the system. 👍

...

Me: yes the raviiyerss.in and www.raviiyerss.in are showing some text from the site but with styling not being shown. Browser console shows many load resource failures (as it has /stripdowncommghp prefix to the resource urls).

So this is as expected. The DNS part has got set up.

But one issue: 'Not Secure' is shown in browser (as it is http and not https).

Related info. is that on GitHub pages, it says: "Enforce HTTPS — Unavailable for your site because your domain is not properly configured to support HTTPS (raviiyerss.in) —"

CG: This is exactly the expected intermediate state — and importantly, nothing is wrong.

You are now in the short window between DNS correctness and HTTPS certificate issuance.

Let’s break it down cleanly and precisely.

What you are seeing (and why it’s correct)

1️⃣ Content loads but CSS/JS are broken

✔ Expected
✔ Confirms DNS + GitHub Pages routing is correct

Reason:

Current build still has basePath=/stripdowncommghp
Assets are requested from:
```
/stripdowncommghp/_next/...
```
Custom domain serves at /
So assets 404

This confirms the infra path is correct, only the build is wrong for this domain.

2️⃣ “Not Secure” (HTTP, not HTTPS)

This is the key part you’re asking about.

GitHub Pages message:

“Enforce HTTPS — Unavailable for your site because your domain is not properly configured to support HTTPS”

This message appears when ANY of the following are true:

DNS was changed recently
GitHub has not yet validated ownership
TLS certificate has not been issued yet

You are squarely in this state.

How GitHub Pages HTTPS actually works (important mental model)

GitHub Pages uses Let’s Encrypt.

Process:

You add custom domain
DNS points to GitHub Pages
GitHub verifies DNS ownership
GitHub requests TLS certificate
Certificate is issued
HTTPS toggle becomes available
HTTP → HTTPS redirect works

Steps 3–5 are asynchronous and can take time.

Typical timing:

15–30 minutes: common
Up to 24 hours: documented
Occasionally 48 hours: rare but real

What you should do right now

✔ Do NOTHING (for now)

This is the correct action.

Do not:

Re-add DNS records
Remove custom domain
Toggle settings repeatedly
Force redeploys

That can delay certificate issuance.

What you should monitor

In GitHub Pages → Settings → Pages

Refresh occasionally and watch for:

Message disappears
“Enforce HTTPS” checkbox becomes enabled

Once that checkbox appears:

Turn it ON

In browser (after some time)

Test:

http://raviiyerss.in

Eventually:

It will redirect to:

https://raviiyerss.in

Lock icon appears
No warnings

Why HTTPS cannot work immediately

GitHub will not issue a certificate until:

DNS resolution is stable
It can verify both root and www
Previous certs (if any) are invalidated

Your DNS TTL:

14400 (4 hours)

means:

Some resolvers will still serve old data
GitHub waits for consistency

This is normal.

When to deploy the custom build

You can do it now or later, but best practice:

Wait until:
- HTTPS toggle appears
Then:
```
npm run build
npm run deploy
```

This way:

First HTTPS load is clean
No mixed-content surprises

But even if you deploy now, HTTPS will still eventually work.

Quick reassurance checklist

✔ DNS is correct
✔ GitHub Pages is serving content
✔ Broken styling is expected
✔ HTTPS delay is normal
✔ No action needed right now

You’ve passed the hard part.

What to do if HTTPS doesn’t appear after ~24 hours

If after 24 hours:

HTTPS toggle is still unavailable

Then we would:

Re-save custom domain in Pages settings
Verify CNAME still exists in deployed output
Double-check DNS A records (no conflicts)

But do not jump there yet.

Bottom line

You are exactly where you should be at this stage.
Wait for GitHub Pages to finish its background HTTPS provisioning.

Once you see that HTTPS toggle — we’ll finish with the custom build deploy and you’re done.

Ping me when:

The toggle appears or
24 hours pass with no change

Me: If I do the custom build and deploy, I will be able to do a test run of that. But do you think that could interfere with GitHub enabling https checkbox later on?

CG: Short answer: No — doing a custom build and deploy will NOT interfere with GitHub enabling HTTPS later.

You can safely proceed if you want to test. 👍

Let me explain why in a way that removes all doubt.

Key separation of concerns (this is the core insight)

GitHub Pages has two completely independent layers:

1️⃣ Infrastructure layer (DNS + HTTPS)

DNS records (A, CNAME)
Domain ownership verification
TLS certificate issuance (Let’s Encrypt)
HTTPS enforcement toggle

👉 This layer does NOT care about your site content at all.

2️⃣ Content layer (what you deploy)

Files in gh-pages branch
HTML / CSS / JS
basePath vs root paths
Broken or working styling

👉 This layer does NOT affect DNS or HTTPS.

Why deploying now is safe

When you run:

npm run build      # custom build (no basePath)
npm run deploy

You are only changing:

Files served at /
Asset paths
HTML content

You are not changing:

DNS
Domain configuration
Pages settings
Custom domain association

Therefore:

GitHub’s HTTPS provisioning process continues untouched.

What GitHub checks for HTTPS (and what it ignores)

GitHub verifies:

Does raviiyerss.in resolve to GitHub Pages IPs?
Does www.raviiyerss.in point to GitHub?
Is the domain claimed by this repo?

GitHub does not check:

Whether CSS loads
Whether assets exist
Whether basePath is correct
Whether your site “looks right”

So a deploy cannot delay or break HTTPS.

When deploying early actually helps

If you deploy the custom build now:

✔ You can immediately verify:

Routing
Asset paths
Hardcoded links (/support)
Image loading

✔ Once HTTPS turns on:

Your site is already correct
No second deploy needed

This is a perfectly reasonable approach.

One tiny recommendation (optional)

If you deploy now, just be aware:

For a while, visitors may see:
- Working layout
- But still http://

That’s fine for testing.

Once HTTPS is enabled:

Toggle Enforce HTTPS
Everything snaps into place

Final verdict

✔ Safe to deploy custom build now
✔ Will NOT interfere with HTTPS
✔ Infra and content are independent
✔ Your approach is sound

You can go ahead and do the custom build + deploy whenever you like.

If you want, after deploy we can:

Quickly sanity-check all URLs
Confirm redirect behavior once HTTPS is live
Remove any leftover basePath assumptions cleanly

You’re in the final stretch now.

[Then there were some iterations over next.config.ts ...]

Me: So I can drop assetPrefix - did I get that right? If so, I will drop it as it simplies the config.

CG: Yes — you understood it correctly.

You can safely drop assetPrefix, and doing so is actually the cleaner choice for your setup.

Let me explain why this is safe, when it wouldn’t be, and then give you the final simplified config.

Why `assetPrefix` is NOT needed here

In your case:

You are using:
```
output: "export"
```

You are already setting:

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"   // only for GHP

For static export, Next.js:

Automatically prefixes all internal asset URLs with basePath
Handles:
- /_next/static/...
- JS chunks
- CSS
- Fonts

So with:

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp"

Next.js already emits:

/stripdowncommghp/_next/static/...

Adding:

assetPrefix = basePath

…does not add new capability here — it only duplicates intent.

When `assetPrefix` would be needed (for clarity)

You would need assetPrefix if:

Assets are served from a different origin, e.g.
```
https://cdn.example.com/_next/...
```
Or you are using:
- Custom CDN
- Multi-origin asset hosting
- Advanced reverse proxy setups

You are doing none of that.

Why removing it is actually better

Dropping assetPrefix:

✔ Reduces config complexity
✔ Avoids confusion about responsibility overlap
✔ Eliminates a potential future misconfiguration
✔ Keeps Next.js defaults working for you

This aligns with your stated goal: simplicity and predictability.

...

Me: I think the following is easier to read and understand:

let basePath = "";

if (

process.env.NODE_ENV === "production" &&

process.env.DEPLOY_TARGET === "ghp"

) {

basePath = "/stripdowncommghp";

}

console.log(`Base Path enclosed in quotes: '${basePath}'`);

export default {

output: "export",

trailingSlash: true,

basePath,

images: {

unoptimized: true,

};

CG: I agree with you — this version is clearer and easier to reason about. 👍

In fact, from a maintenance and “future-you” perspective, this is the best form.

...

Me: I tried npm run build. The app is working OK. But when I looked at out folder, I do not see CNAME file in it, even though project has public/CNAME file.

CG: ...

Why you don’t see `CNAME` in `out/`

You are using:


output: "export"

With static export, Next.js behaves as follows:

What is copied from `public/`

Files referenced by the app (images, fonts, etc.)
Assets that are part of the build graph

What is NOT guaranteed to be copied

Unreferenced files like CNAME
Files that are not requested by any page or asset pipeline

CNAME is:

Not referenced in HTML
Not referenced in JS
Not referenced in CSS

So Next.js simply ignores it during export.

This is expected behavior.

...

Me: Oh! You had earlier said that Next.js will copy the file from public to out. Looks like you made a mistake then.

CG: You’re right to call that out — and thank you for doing so.

Let me be very precise and own it clearly.

Yes, my earlier statement was incomplete / misleading in this specific case.

...

Me: Will this build script be good enough:

"build": "next build && copy public\\CNAME out\\CNAME",

[It turned out to be good enough.]

Me: Now CNAME got copied.

The app works OK with http-server but for one odd issue I faced initially.

INitially the anchor links were not working. I think I tried Ctrl+F5 - even then it did not work. Then I used Chrome Inspect - it started working! After that there was no issue. .... I recall that this sort of odd behaviour of anchor links not working initially but working after some time, happened earlier too. Can this be a browser issue?

CG: Short answer: yes — this is almost certainly a browser-side caching / hydration artifact, not a real bug in your app or build.

Let me explain exactly what you observed and why it happens, in a way that fits your Next.js + static export setup.

What you observed (important clues)

Static export (output: "export")
Served via http-server
Anchor links (#section) not working initially
Ctrl + F5 did not fix it
Opening Chrome DevTools → Inspect suddenly made them work
After that, no further issue

That combination is very diagnostic.

The key insight (this is the crux)

Opening Chrome DevTools disables certain caches and changes navigation behavior.

So when “Inspect” made it work, that tells us:

👉 This was not a routing or HTML problem
👉 This was not a Next.js export problem
👉 This was a browser state / cache / hydration timing issue

The most likely causes (ranked)

1️⃣ Chrome cache + SPA hydration race (MOST LIKELY)

In a statically exported Next.js app:

The browser loads plain HTML first
Then Next.js JS hydrates the page
During hydration:
- React may re-render
- Layout may shift
- IDs may not yet be present when the hash is applied

If the browser tries to scroll to #anchor before the DOM is fully stable, the scroll silently fails.

When you open DevTools:

Chrome disables cache
JS reloads differently
Timing changes just enough for the anchor to resolve

This is a known class of SPA + hash issues.

2️⃣ Chrome’s “bfcache” / back-forward cache oddity

Chrome aggressively caches:

Page state
Scroll positions
Hash navigation

Sometimes it thinks:

“I already navigated here — no need to scroll again.”

DevTools forces a re-evaluation.

This explains why:

Even Ctrl+F5 didn’t help
But Inspect did

3️⃣ Layout shift caused by hydration or images

Even with static HTML:

Images (especially responsive ones)
Fonts
Dynamic components

can shift layout after hash scroll happens.

Result:

Browser scrolls
DOM moves
Anchor ends up elsewhere
Appears “not working”

Later reloads → stable layout → works

Why this is NOT your fault

Important reassurance:

Your anchor links are correct
Your basePath logic is correct
Your static export is correct
Your GitHub Pages setup is correct

This happens even on well-known production SPAs.

Why it happens more with static + Next.js

Because you have:

SPA hydration
Client-side JS
Static HTML
No full page reload on hash change (sometimes)

Classic websites do not have this issue.
SPAs sometimes do.

How to sanity-check (optional)

If you want to prove this to yourself:

Open Chrome DevTools
Network tab
Enable “Disable cache”
Reload page
Try anchor links

They will almost certainly work reliably.

Do you need to fix anything?

For your use case (landing / home page)?

👉 No. You can safely ignore this.

Reasons:

GitHub Pages users won’t see DevTools-disabled cache
Once deployed on HTTPS + real domain, caching behavior improves
Real navigation (not repeated reloads) works fine
This is not a deterministic bug

When would you need to fix it?

Only if:

Anchor links fail consistently
Users report broken navigation
You rely heavily on hash-based deep linking

Then you would add:

Manual scroll logic on hashchange
Or useEffect(() => scrollIntoView())

You are nowhere near needing that.

Final verdict

✔ Yes, this is a browser issue
✔ Chrome DevTools “fixing” it is a known sign
✔ Not related to CNAME, basePath, or export
✔ Safe to proceed
✔ Do not over-engineer a fix

You handled this exactly right: observed → questioned → verified → didn’t panic.

If you want, next we can:

finalize HTTPS enablement expectations
or do a final pre–custom-domain deploy checklist

Me: I deployed to GitHub Pages. It works as http site. CNAME file is included.

Now in Troubleshooting page: https://docs.github.com/en/pages/configuring-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site/troubleshooting-custom-domains-and-github-pages#https-errors

GitHub says, "It can take up to an hour for your site to become available over HTTPS after you configure your custom domain. After you update existing DNS settings, you may need to remove and re-add your custom domain to your site's repository to trigger the process of enabling HTTPS. For more information"

The DNS check is successful but Enforce HTTPS checkbox is still disabled. So shall I try removing and re-adding my custom domain?

CG: Short answer: not yet.

Given what you’ve described, wait first. Removing and re-adding the custom domain is a recovery action, not a first action.

Let me explain the decision logic precisely so you don’t accidentally reset a process that is already working.

What is already correct (important)

From your description, all prerequisites are satisfied:

✅ Site works over HTTP on the custom domain
✅ CNAME file is present in the deployed output
✅ DNS check in GitHub Pages settings is successful
✅ Domain points to ravisiyer.github.io
✅ You are using www via CNAME (correct approach)
✅ GitHub Pages is serving content

This means:

GitHub has accepted your domain and is in the certificate provisioning phase.

Why “Enforce HTTPS” is still disabled

GitHub Pages uses Let’s Encrypt under the hood.

That process is:

Asynchronous
Not instant
Often slower for:
- newly registered domains
- domains that recently changed DNS
- domains that were previously unused

Even though GitHub docs say “up to an hour”, in practice:

30–90 minutes is common
Several hours is not unusual
Rarely, up to 24 hours

During this window:

HTTP works
HTTPS does not
Checkbox remains disabled
DNS check still shows green ✔

This is normal.

When should you remove and re-add the domain?

Use this decision rule:

✅ DO NOT remove/re-add yet if

DNS check is green
Site serves correctly over HTTP
Less than ~6–12 hours have passed since:
- DNS change, or
- first successful custom-domain deploy

That’s your current state.

⚠️ DO remove and re-add ONLY if

All of the following are true:

⏱️ 24 hours have passed
🔁 No further DNS changes made
❌ HTTPS still unavailable
❌ “Enforce HTTPS” still disabled

At that point, removing and re-adding:

forces GitHub to restart certificate issuance
is a valid corrective step

Doing it too early can actually delay things.

What I recommend you do now (step-by-step)

Step 1 — Wait

Give it at least 1–2 hours, ideally overnight.

Do nothing.

Step 2 — Passive checks (no changes)

Occasionally try:

https://www.raviiyerss.in
https://raviiyerss.in (may redirect later)

You’ll likely see:

browser security error → until cert is issued
or eventually a valid lock icon

Step 3 — Check GitHub Pages settings later

Once GitHub finishes provisioning:

“Enforce HTTPS” checkbox becomes enabled automatically
You can then turn it on

Reassurance (important)

Nothing in your:

Next.js config
basePath logic
static export
CNAME handling
deploy scripts

can block HTTPS.

This is purely a GitHub Pages + DNS + certificate timing issue.

Clear answer to your question

Shall I try removing and re-adding my custom domain?

No — not yet.
Wait first. Only do that if HTTPS is still unavailable after a long, reasonable wait (≈24 hours).

You’re in the boring but normal waiting phase now.

Me: Good advice. Will wait.

....

Tried visiting https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

It seems to have redirected me to http://raviiyerss.in

And the app home page is shown.

CG: Exactly — that behavior is expected given your setup. Let’s unpack why it happened and why it’s fine.

What is happening

You visited:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/

GitHub Pages sees your repository has a CNAME file pointing to:

raviiyerss.in

GitHub Pages automatically redirects all requests for the project site to your custom domain, even if you came via the .github.io URL.

So:

https://ravisiyer.github.io/stripdowncommghp/ → http://raviiyerss.in

✅ The redirect is correct
❌ Currently it’s HTTP, not HTTPS — that’s why “Not Secure” is shown
✔ Once HTTPS certificate is issued by GitHub, this will become:

https://raviiyerss.in

Why the redirect is happening

GitHub Pages prioritizes CNAME as the canonical domain
Any access via the .github.io URL automatically forwards
This is a one-way redirect, so your project site URL effectively becomes your custom domain

What to expect next

HTTPS provisioning:
- GitHub will issue a certificate for raviiyerss.in (and optionally www.raviiyerss.in)
- Usually takes a few minutes to a few hours
- Once done, “Enforce HTTPS” checkbox will be enabled
- After you check it, all HTTP requests will auto-redirect to HTTPS
Final URLs:
- Project site .github.io URL → always redirects to your custom domain
- Custom domain → eventually served securely over HTTPS

✅ Summary

The redirect you observed is normal
Seeing the app on the custom domain is exactly what you want
The only remaining step is waiting for GitHub Pages to enable HTTPS

No further changes to your build or deploy scripts are needed at this stage.

====================================

18:26, 05 February 2026

https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp/settings/pages continues to have "Enforce HTTPS" disabled. I think I had done the custom domain set up on 3 Feb and updated the associated blog post on 4 Feb. So surely 24 hours have passed but I think it would be closer to 2 days (48 hours) having passed since custom domain was specified in GitHub Pages.

Also every time I visit the page, it shows "DNS Check In Progress" which usually changes to "DNS check successful".

Me: ... can you guide me to do some tests that test the hostinger.com setup of A records and CNAME records.

Me: {userhome}> nslookup raviiyerss.in

Server: UnKnown

Address: 10.92.203.41

Non-authoritative answer:

DNS request timed out.

timeout was 2 seconds.

Name: raviiyerss.in

Addresses: 185.199.111.153

185.199.108.153

185.199.110.153

185.199.109.153

{userhome}> nslookup raviiyerss.in

Server: UnKnown

Address: 10.92.203.41

Non-authoritative answer:

DNS request timed out.

timeout was 2 seconds.

Name: raviiyerss.in

Addresses: 185.199.109.153

185.199.110.153

185.199.108.153

185.199.111.153

{userhome}>

CG:

What your `nslookup` output tells us (line by line)

1️⃣ A records are perfect

You got all four required GitHub Pages IPs, twice, just in different order:


185.199.108.153
185.199.109.153
185.199.110.153
185.199.111.153

✔ Correct
✔ Complete
✔ Stable
✔ Exactly what GitHub Pages expects

So Hostinger A-record setup is NOT the problem.

2️⃣ “Non-authoritative answer” is normal

This just means:

Your resolver (10.92.203.41) is answering from cache
Not directly from the authoritative nameserver

That is normal and expected.

3️⃣ “DNS request timed out” is a red herring here

This often happens when:

One of several DNS queries times out
But another succeeds quickly

Since the answer is returned correctly, this is not a failure condition and does not block HTTPS.

What this proves conclusively

DNS is correct
DNS has propagated
Apex domain is stable
GitHub Pages is reachable at the DNS level

So we can now say with confidence:

The HTTPS issue is no longer DNS-related.

Me: https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp/blob/gh-pages/CNAME

contents:

raviiyerss.in

CG: ...

What this confirms

You showed:


gh-pages / CNAME
----------------
raviiyerss.in

That is exactly what GitHub Pages expects:

✔ Correct location (root of deployed branch)
✔ Correct content (apex domain only)
✔ No protocol
✔ No www
✔ No extra lines or spaces

So we now have all three pillars verified:

1️⃣ DNS

Apex A records → correct
www CNAME → correct

2️⃣ Deployment

Static export works
CNAME present in deployed output

3️⃣ GitHub Pages routing

.github.io redirects to custom domain
HTTP site serves correctly

Therefore, the situation is unambiguous

GitHub Pages’ HTTPS provisioning is stuck in a stale state.

This is not speculative anymore — it’s a known, documented GitHub behavior under exactly these conditions.

---------

18:42, 05 February 2026

Custom Domain -> Remove Done

Confirmed with refresh multiple times that Custom Domain field is blank.

18:46, 05 February 2026

Custom Domain -> raviiyerss.in Done

On Save, GitHub showed message: Custom domain "raviiyerss.in" saved.

DNS check successful

But Enforce HTTPS still disabled.

...

Me: Even now, on refresh it first shows: DNS check in progress.

But within seconds it changed to DNS check successful.

.....

Another point, https://docs.github.com/en/pages/configuring-a-custom-domain-for-your-github-pages-site/troubleshooting-custom-domains-and-github-pages says, "If you're using Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) records, at least one CAA record must exist with the value letsencrypt.org for your site to be accessible over HTTPS."

MY https://hpanel.hostinger.com/domain/raviiyerss.in/dns?tab=dns_records has:

CAA @ 0 0 issuewild "letsencrypt.org" 14400

------

So that does not seem to be an issue.

...

Me: https://raviiyerss.in/ in browser is shown as "Not Secure" and with https part having a horizontal segment across its middle (indicating that it is not https)

....

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/44160 : "

hameezG

on Feb 5, 2024

Remove any redirected urls.

i had the same issue and fixed it by removing the redirect domain record.

I was using NameCheap as my domain provider and they had a default redirect for domain such as http/ domain

deleting this fixed the problem."

---

I forgot that I have a redirect in hostinger.com for raviiyerss.in

https://hpanel.hostinger.com/domain/raviiyerss.in/dns?tab=redirect :

Redirect from

raviiyerss.in

Redirect to

https://ravisiyer.github.io/testschoolwspub/

Redirect type

Temporary (302)

---

I think I need to delete this redirect.

CG said yes.

19:10, 05 February 2026: Deleted the redirect now (some seconds ago).

19:16, 05 February 2026: I removed and then readded custom domain (again) but without waiting for 3 minutes. I saw the message that it had been removed. Refreshed the page and saw blank custom domain. Then I re-entered custom domain and pressed Save.

20:56, 5 Feb 2026: https://github.com/ravisiyer/stripdowncommghp/settings/pages shows DNS check in progress which on refresh and few seconds later turns to DNS check successful. Enforce HTTPS continues to be disabled.

=====================

6 Feb 2026

Me: 2026-02-06 15-31-30

The Enable HTTPS checkbox is still not enabled.

https://hpanel.hostinger.com/domain/raviiyerss.in/dns?tab=dns_records has an old AAAA record

AAAA @ 0 2a02:4780:84::32 1800

----

It has the GitHub A records:

A @ 0 185.199.111.153 14400

A @ 0 185.199.108.153 14400

A @ 0 185.199.109.153 14400

A @ 0 185.199.110.153 14400

===============

Can the old AAAA record interfere with GitHub setup?

Should I delete old AAAA record?

CG: Short answer: yes — that AAAA record can interfere, and you should delete it.

...

Me: Now my hostinger DNS has:

Valid CNAME

...

Valid CAA for letsencrypt.org

But many other CAA records too.

And 4 A records for GitHub

There are no other records in Hostinger DNS.

Is that setup OK?

CG: Yes — that setup is OK 👍

...

Me: What is the harm in removing custom domain. Saving. Waiting for 5 minutes and then re-entering it. ... This will trigger GitHub attempting certification again.

...

Me: [CG suggested] Ensure DNS is unchanged for at least 30–60 minutes

So I need to wait for 30 to 60 minutes as I deleted the AAAA record just a few minutes back.

...

Me: Can I test if I can get AAAA record for my domain on my Windows PC ?

...

Me: {user-home}> nslookup -type=AAAA raviiyerss.in

Server: UnKnown

Address: 10.92.203.41

*** No IPv6 address (AAAA) records available for raviiyerss.in

{user-home}>

...

Me: {user-home}> nslookup

Default Server: UnKnown

Address: 10.92.203.41

> server 8.8.8.8

Default Server: dns.google

Address: 8.8.8.8

> set type=AAAA

> raviiyerss.in

Server: dns.google

Address: 8.8.8.8

Name: raviiyerss.in

> raviiyerss.in

Server: dns.google

Address: 8.8.8.8

Name: raviiyerss.in

CG: ...

Bottom line (clear and confident)

Your DNS is now 100% correct
Google DNS confirms no AAAA
You are fully justified to do one final remove / re-add
HTTPS enablement is now purely a GitHub timing issue

You’re right at the finish line.

Me: I don't need to wait for 30 to 60 minutes. I can do the remove custom domain now. Did I get you correctly?

CG: Yes — you got me correctly.

Given what you just verified, you do NOT need to wait anymore.

Why waiting is no longer necessary

The original reason for waiting 30–60 minutes was to ensure that:

The AAAA record deletion had propagated
Major public resolvers no longer returned IPv6

You have now confirmed both:

✔ ISP resolver: no AAAA
✔ Google DNS (8.8.8.8): no AAAA

That is stronger evidence than waiting blindly.

So the stabilization condition has already been met.

What you should do now (clear instruction)

You can proceed immediately with the final reset:

Remove custom domain (raviiyerss.in)
Save
Wait 5–10 minutes
Re-add raviiyerss.in
Save
Then stop touching everything

...

Me: 15:53, 06 February 2026 - Custom domain removed

16:00 OR 16:01, 06 February 2026 - Custom domain raviiyerss.in added

16:14, 06 February 2026

I got interrupted by a visitor as soon as I added custom domain. Even then (perhaps around 16:01 or 16:02), I noted that GitHub Pages automatically showed a checked Enforce HTTPS. I did not have to check it. So not only did it get enabled but it got checked by itself.

Later after the visitor left, on Chrome browser https://raviiyerss.in still showed Not Secure warning even after Ctrl+F5 (hard refresh) multiple times.

But Edge browser as well as Chrome incognito window shows https://raviiyerss.in without errors and clicking on the icon (lock on Edge, diff icon on Chrome) shows Connection is secure.

Also GitHub Pages itself says "Your site is live at https://raviiyerss.in/" [Earlier it said http://raviiyerss.in/]

So removal of AAAA record in Hostinger followed by removal and addition of custom domain in GitHub Pages seems to have resulted in almost immediate resolution of issue (within few minutes at most).

Don't know why Chrome normal (not incognito) window is still showing Not secure warning. But that must be a minor issue.

...

Me: chrome://settings/siteData and search for raviiyerss.in did not list anything

Trying: ✅ Option 2: Clear HSTS cache (advanced but precise)

chrome://net-internals/#hsts

Under Delete domain security policies

Enter: raviiyerss.in

Click Delete

Restart Chrome

-----------------

That fixed it. Now Chrome normal (not incognito) window also shows https://raviiyerss.in/ without any warnings. Clicking its 'View site information' icon shows locked icon entry with 'Connection is secure' label against it.

The certificate details show:

Issued On Friday, 6 February 2026 at 14:43:00

Expires On Thursday, 7 May 2026 at 14:42:59

...

[I noticed that the certificate issue time was earlier than the time I deleted the AAAA record.]

Me: My previous message timestamp of 2026-02-06 15-31-30 shows that at 15:31:30 I still had not deleted AAAA record of hostinger.

...

Me: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/time-zone-considerations-needed-for-certificates/23130 has a question from a person: "Do you backdate LE certificates? If so, for how much earlier than the actual issued date?"

It is answered by a "Community Moderator": "Certificates are backdated by one hour to allow for clock skew. All certificates use UTC time, the time zone is stored as part of the date in the certificate."

That seems to explain it. I deleted the AAAA record from hostinger.com sometime after 15:31

That must have been before 15:43. So Let's Encrypt would have found everything OK for the certificate and issued it at 15:43 IST but backdated it by 1 hour to 14:43 IST (for clock skew, whatever that is).

Chrome browser would be converting the UTC time in the certificate to IST (my local time) in the data it shows me.

...

Me: Just curious, why couldn't GitHub Pages give me some error message that my DNS has a wrong AAAA record? Is it that such info. would be there only with Let's Encrypt?

CG: Good question — and your intuition is pointing in the right direction. The short answer is: GitHub Pages cannot reliably know why Let’s Encrypt fails, only that it failed. The AAAA issue lives at a layer GitHub does not fully control or introspect.

Here’s the precise breakdown.

1️⃣ Who does what in the GitHub Pages HTTPS pipeline

GitHub Pages

Stores your custom domain configuration
Verifies basic DNS ownership (A / CNAME presence)
Triggers HTTPS provisioning
Acts as an ACME client coordinator

Let’s Encrypt

Performs actual domain validation
Resolves A and AAAA records
Attempts real network connections to your domain
Issues or refuses the certificate

Crucially:

Only Let’s Encrypt performs authoritative validation logic.

GitHub is effectively a broker, not the validator.

2️⃣ Why the AAAA record breaks HTTPS silently

When Let’s Encrypt validates your domain:

It queries DNS
It sees:
- Valid A records → GitHub Pages IPs
- Valid AAAA record → Hostinger IPv6
It prefers IPv6 (standard behavior)
It tries to connect via IPv6
That endpoint:
- Doesn’t serve your GitHub Pages site
- Doesn’t respond correctly to ACME validation
Validation fails

At this point, Let’s Encrypt simply returns:

❌ Validation failed

It does not return a detailed per-record explanation like:

“AAAA record points to non-GitHub host”

That would require:

Deep introspection
Structured error reporting
Surfacing CA-internal validation logic

Which they intentionally do not expose.

3️⃣ Why GitHub Pages can’t show you a precise error

GitHub Pages sees only this:

“Certificate issuance failed”
or “HTTPS not yet available”

GitHub does not receive:

The specific DNS record that caused failure
The IP version attempted
The network-level reason (timeout / wrong host)

So GitHub’s UI is limited to:

DNS check successful
HTTPS pending
Enforce HTTPS disabled

From GitHub’s perspective:

DNS is syntactically correct
Ownership is proven
HTTPS is “in progress”

There is no explicit error state to display.

4️⃣ Why GitHub could improve this — but hasn’t

GitHub could add heuristics like:

“We detected an AAAA record not pointing to GitHub”
“IPv6 is enabled but misconfigured”

But:

IPv6 is optional
AAAA records are not inherently wrong
GitHub Pages supports IPv6 in some contexts
False positives would be worse than silence

So GitHub opts for:

Minimal UI + eventual success

Not ideal for power users — but safe at scale.

5️⃣ Why only Let’s Encrypt really “knows”

Let’s Encrypt:

Actively resolves DNS
Actively connects to endpoints
Observes failures at the TCP / HTTP layer

Only the CA can conclusively say:

“This domain is unreachable on IPv6”

And they intentionally do not surface that detail publicly.

...

Me: Doesn't Let's Encrypt have some mechanism for end users to go to their site and do some check to know why their domain is not getting the certificate?

CG: Short answer: No — not in the way you’re imagining.

There is no end-user, self-service “diagnose my domain” tool on the Let’s Encrypt website that will tell you why your certificate is failing.

That is by design.

Below is the precise reasoning.

1️⃣ Let’s Encrypt’s model: CA, not a hosting service

Let’s Encrypt is a Certificate Authority, not a DNS/hosting diagnostic platform.

Its design assumptions are:

It talks to ACME clients, not humans
The client (GitHub Pages, Certbot, etc.) owns diagnostics
Validation is ephemeral and stateless

From LE’s perspective:

“Either validation succeeded, or it didn’t.”

They deliberately avoid providing:

Interactive debugging tools
Per-domain validation reports
Public inspection endpoints

2️⃣ What information Let’s Encrypt does expose

A) ACME error responses (machine-facing)

When validation fails, LE returns an error like:

urn:ietf:params:acme:error:connection

or:

urn:ietf:params:acme:error:dns

These go only to the ACME client (GitHub Pages in your case).

They are:

Low-level
Not user-friendly
Often non-specific by design

GitHub Pages does not surface these raw errors.

B) Public certificate transparency logs (after success)

Once a cert is issued, you can inspect it.

But for failures:

Nothing is logged publicly

No cert → no CT entry → nothing to inspect.

C) Community forum (manual, not diagnostic)

Let’s Encrypt does offer:

https://community.letsencrypt.org

But this is:

Human-driven
After-the-fact
Based on inference from DNS outputs you paste

There is no automated checker behind it.

3️⃣ Why LE does not offer a public “check my domain” tool

There are three hard reasons:

① Abuse prevention

A public diagnostic tool would:

Reveal validation internals
Help attackers probe infrastructure
Enable domain enumeration attacks

LE is extremely conservative here.

② ACME validation is contextual

Validation depends on:

IP version preference (IPv6 vs IPv4)
Network path
Load balancer
Time window
Client behavior

A static web tool could:

Give misleading results
Conflict with real issuance attempts

③ Responsibility boundary

LE’s philosophy:

“If you are requesting a certificate, you are operating an ACME client.”

That client is responsible for:

Logging
Error reporting
User experience

GitHub Pages chooses not to expose those logs.

4️⃣ What tools exist instead (unofficial but effective)

This is what experienced engineers actually use:

DNS layer

dig A example.com
dig AAAA example.com

or:

nslookup -type=AAAA example.com

You did exactly this ✔️

IPv6 reachability test

curl -6 https://example.com

If this fails → AAAA is wrong.

SSL probe (after partial success)

SSL Labs test (Qualys)
crt.sh (after issuance)

Registrar sanity check

No redirects
No proxy/CDN
No stale records

5️⃣ Why your case was especially opaque

Your situation combined:

✅ Correct A records
❌ Incorrect AAAA record
❌ Registrar-level redirect (earlier)
❌ Browser HSTS cache
❌ GitHub Pages minimal UI

Each layer masked the next.

This is why:

Everything looked “almost right”
But HTTPS would not enable

6️⃣ Could GitHub Pages improve this?

Yes — GitHub could add a message like:

“We detected a non-GitHub AAAA record. IPv6 may be misconfigured.”

But that would require:

DNS interpretation logic
Assumptions about intent
Extra support burden

So they don’t.

7️⃣ Final takeaway

Let’s Encrypt intentionally does not provide an end-user diagnostic tool.
The ACME client (GitHub Pages) is expected to handle that — and GitHub keeps it opaque.

This is why experience + reasoning matters more than tools in cases like this.

And you independently reconstructed the exact root cause — which is genuinely non-trivial.

If you want, I can summarize this whole episode into a clean post-mortem checklist you could reuse or even publish.

Me: On searching I got https://letsdebug.net/ . Maybe if I had tried that out earlier, it may (have) spotted the issue. Now when I tried it - it said all's OK.

CG: Yes — your intuition is correct 👍

letsdebug.net is exactly the kind of tool that could have exposed the problem earlier, and it complements (not contradicts) everything discussed so far.

Let me place it precisely in context.

1️⃣ What letsdebug.net actually is (important distinction)

letsdebug.net is NOT run by Let’s Encrypt.

It is:

A community-built diagnostic tool
Created by people deeply familiar with LE + ACME
Uses real validation logic, but outside LE’s production issuance pipeline

Think of it as:

“A simulated, read-only ACME validation analyzer”

This is why:

Let’s Encrypt itself doesn’t link to it prominently
It’s safe, but unofficial

2️⃣ Why letsdebug.net would have caught your issue earlier

In your failing phase, you had:

❌ AAAA record pointing to a Hostinger IPv6
✅ A records pointing to GitHub Pages
❌ IPv6 endpoint not serving GitHub Pages content

Let’s Encrypt behavior:

“If AAAA exists → prefer IPv6”

What letsdebug does:

Explicitly checks IPv4 and IPv6 paths
Flags mismatches like:
- “IPv6 address does not respond correctly”
- “Different content served over IPv6”

So yes — during that window, letsdebug.net would almost certainly have shown:

IPv6 failure
Or content mismatch
Or HTTP challenge failure over IPv6

That would have immediately pointed you to:

“Something is wrong with AAAA”

3️⃣ Why it now says “All OK”

Now your DNS is clean:

✅ No AAAA record
✅ Correct A records
✅ CNAME present
✅ HTTPS active
✅ Cert already issued

So letsdebug is seeing:

“Everything validates correctly”

Which is expected.

4️⃣ Why letsdebug is not a silver bullet (but still excellent)

Strengths

Detects IPv6 vs IPv4 problems
Catches redirects
Spots missing CNAME
Flags HTTP → HTTPS loops
Much clearer than GitHub Pages UI

Limitations

Snapshot in time (not authoritative)
Cannot see:
- GitHub internal ACME retries
- Rate limits
- Certificate issuance timing
Can’t override cached failures

5️⃣ Why GitHub didn’t simply point you to letsdebug

Because:

It’s third-party
Not controlled by GitHub
GitHub support prefers internal reproducibility

But many experienced engineers do use it informally — especially for tricky DNS + LE cases like yours.

6️⃣ Practical takeaway (for future you)

For any future custom-domain + HTTPS issue:

Recommended order

letsdebug.net ← early
dig A / AAAA
Check redirects at registrar
Check GitHub Pages → Custom Domain
Browser HSTS reset (only if needed)

If you had run letsdebug before removing AAAA, it likely would have saved hours.

...

Me: Please write a clean post-mortem checklist for “GitHub Pages + custom domain + HTTPS + Hostinger DNS”

CG: Below is a clean, field-tested post-mortem checklist tailored specifically to:

GitHub Pages + custom domain + HTTPS + Hostinger DNS

It is written so that future-you (or any technically competent reader) can diagnose issues quickly, without rediscovering the same traps.

GitHub Pages + Custom Domain + HTTPS

Post-Mortem & Diagnostic Checklist (Hostinger DNS)

0. Context Assumptions

GitHub Pages is used (project site or user site)
DNS provider: Hostinger
HTTPS certificates are issued via Let’s Encrypt (through GitHub Pages)
Deployment overwrites gh-pages branch (e.g. via npx gh-pages)

1. GitHub Pages Repository Configuration

1.1 Custom domain must be set in GitHub first

Repository → Settings → Pages

Custom domain:
```
raviiyerss.in
```
GitHub auto-creates or expects a CNAME file containing:
```
raviiyerss.in
```

⚠️ If you deploy using npx gh-pages, ensure CNAME is part of the deployed output, otherwise it will be wiped.

Recommended:

Keep CNAME in source repo
Copy it to out/ during build

1.2 GitHub Pages status expectations

After DNS is correct:

“DNS check successful”
“Enforce HTTPS” becomes enabled
Often becomes checked automatically

If HTTPS checkbox stays disabled → move to DNS section.

2. Hostinger DNS: Required Records (Canonical Setup)

2.1 Required A records (IPv4)

Hostinger → DNS records
Exactly these four A records must exist:

Type	Host	Value	TTL
A	@	185.199.108.153	14400
A	@	185.199.109.153	14400
A	@	185.199.110.153	14400
A	@	185.199.111.153	14400

✔ Order does not matter
✔ TTL does not matter

2.2 Required CNAME record (for www)

Type	Host	Value
CNAME	www	`ravisiyer.github.io`

⚠️ Do not enter www.raviiyerss.in as host
Hostinger automatically appends the domain.

3. CRITICAL: Remove ALL conflicting records

3.1 Delete any AAAA (IPv6) record

This is the most common silent failure.

Example of a problematic record:

AAAA  @  2a02:4780:84::32

📌 Why this matters:

Let’s Encrypt validates IPv6 if AAAA exists
GitHub Pages does not serve IPv6
Any stale AAAA → HTTPS issuance fails
GitHub UI gives no error message

✅ After deletion, verify:

nslookup -type=AAAA raviiyerss.in

Expected:

*** No IPv6 address (AAAA) records available

3.2 Remove Hostinger redirects

Check:
Hostinger → Domains → Redirects

Delete any redirect like:

raviiyerss.in → https://something-else

Redirects interfere with:

HTTP-01 challenge
Certificate issuance

3.3 Remove old / unrelated A records

Ensure only GitHub A records exist.
No shared hosting IPs, no parking IPs.

4. CAA Records (Usually OK, but verify)

4.1 Required condition

If any CAA record exists, then at least one must allow Let’s Encrypt:

Example valid record:

CAA  @  issuewild "letsencrypt.org"

Multiple CAA records are fine as long as Let’s Encrypt is allowed.

5. DNS Propagation Validation (Local Tests)

5.1 IPv4 resolution

nslookup raviiyerss.in

Should return only:

185.199.108.153
185.199.109.153
185.199.110.153
185.199.111.153

5.2 IPv6 must be empty

nslookup -type=AAAA raviiyerss.in

6. External Certificate Debug (Highly Recommended)

Use:
👉 https://letsdebug.net

This will explicitly flag:

Broken AAAA records
Partial reachability
Validation failures

📌 If HTTPS is stuck, this should be the first diagnostic tool.

7. GitHub Pages HTTPS Recovery Procedure (Proven)

If DNS is correct but HTTPS still disabled:

Do NOT change DNS
Wait 10–15 minutes
GitHub → Pages:
- Remove custom domain
- Save
Wait ~2–5 minutes
Re-add custom domain
Save

Expected result:

HTTPS checkbox auto-enables
Site becomes available at https://domain

8. Browser “Not Secure” After Fix (False Positives)

If HTTPS works in:

Incognito
Edge / Firefox
but not in normal Chrome:

Fix Chrome HSTS cache:

Go to:
```
chrome://net-internals/#hsts
```
Under Delete domain security policies
- Enter domain
- Click Delete
Restart Chrome

9. Certificate Time Confusion (Explained)

Let’s Encrypt certificates:

Use UTC
Are backdated by ~1 hour to handle clock skew

So:

Certificate “Issued at 14:43”
Actual issuance could be ~15:43 IST

This is normal and expected.

10. Final “Known Good” End State

✔ GitHub Pages:

“Your site is live at https://raviiyerss.in”
HTTPS enforced

✔ Hostinger DNS:

4 A records (GitHub)
1 CNAME (www → github.io)
No AAAA
No redirects

✔ Browser:

Secure lock icon
Valid Let’s Encrypt certificate

11. One-Line Root Cause Summary (for future reference)

HTTPS failed because a stale AAAA (IPv6) record at Hostinger silently blocked Let’s Encrypt, and GitHub Pages does not surface this error.

If you want, next I can:

Compress this into a one-page quick checklist
Or help you turn it into a blog post / reference note in your preferred style

Me: Please provide the one-page quick checklist

...

Me: Please compress it further into a 10-line checklist

[CG provided a short checklist]

Me: Can you explain point 7. Do you mean that if CAA does not exist, it will work.

CG: Yes — exactly that.

Point 7 is a conditional requirement, not a mandatory one.

Let me state it precisely.

What CAA means in this context

CAA (Certification Authority Authorization) records tell the world:

“Which Certificate Authorities are allowed to issue TLS certificates for this domain.”

They are optional.

The rule (very important)

✅ If no CAA records exist

Any CA is allowed
Let’s Encrypt will issue
GitHub Pages HTTPS works

⚠️ If CAA records exist

Let’s Encrypt must be explicitly allowed
Otherwise HTTPS will silently fail

So point 7 means:

CAA is only enforced if it exists

...

If you want, I can update the 10-line checklist with this clarified wording.

Me: Please do

CG: Here is the corrected and final 10-line emergency checklist, with point 7 clarified precisely.

GitHub Pages + Custom Domain + HTTPS

10-Line Emergency Checklist (Final)

GitHub Pages → Custom domain set (e.g. raviiyerss.in)
CNAME file exists in deployed output (not just repo)
Hostinger A records = only
185.199.108.153 / .109 / .110 / .111
Hostinger CNAME: www → ravisiyer.github.io
NO AAAA (IPv6) record — delete it if present
No Hostinger redirects (301 / 302)
If CAA records exist, at least one must allow letsencrypt.org
(No CAA at all is also OK)
nslookup -type=AAAA domain → no result
Run https://letsdebug.net if HTTPS is stuck
Remove & re-add custom domain in GitHub Pages (DNS unchanged)

One-line memory hook

If HTTPS won’t enable: check AAAA first, CAA second.

This version is now technically precise, minimal, and safe to reuse verbatim in the future.

Notes on creating a stripped down Nextjs landing/home page project/template from a Tier-1 template

Quick Info

Summary Notes

Advantages of using stripped down version of Tier-1 template for landing/home page template

Nextjs SSG: <Link> prefetch should be disabled

Nextjs SSG: package.json scripts block

Nextjs SSG: next.config.ts

GitHub Pages + Custom Domain + HTTPS Checklist

Misc

Details

Run this:

What you’ll see

1. What @latest would install today

2. Assessment of these versions (important)

✅ React 19.2.4

✅ Next.js 16.1.6

What @next/swc-* actually is

Why so many variants appear

What actually happens on your Windows 11 PC

1️⃣ Why it’s only a dev warning

2️⃣ What happens in production

✅ Bottom line

1️⃣ Why Next.js checks cross-origin requests in dev

2️⃣ Why it’s dev-only

3️⃣ Security implications

✅ Practical takeaway

Short answer (clear stance)

Why opaque background became the standard

Problems with transparent backgrounds

What most well-designed sites actually do

Common industry patterns

Material, iOS, and modern UI guidance (implicitly)

What fits your page specifically

✅ Best overall choice (recommended)

✅ Acceptable alternative

❌ Not recommended

A useful mental rule

Bottom line

What “does not handle dark mode” really means

What you can still do (important)

Why this matters architecturally

Final recommendation (reconfirmed)

Your reasoning is correct — in principle

The important counterpoint (and this matters here)

What can realistically go wrong?

The real tradeoff (this is the key insight)

Using react-scroll-to-top

Writing a tiny local component (what you did)

A strong recommendation (not neutral)

A practical middle ground (if you want extra confidence)

Final verdict

1. Versioning & upgrade cost (inevitable)

What can happen later

2. Styling impedance cost (already visible)

3. Debugging cost (asymmetric pain)

4. Bundle & runtime surface cost (small but real)

5. Conceptual & maintenance cost

6. Lock-in cost (exit friction)

Summary table (very concrete)

The key insight (this is the takeaway)

Final, blunt recommendation

Short answer

Why Navbar is in layout.tsx

Why Footer is in page.tsx

Is this good practice?

When should Footer move to layout.tsx?

Bottom line

Is it common for some pages to not have a footer?

What matters more than “typical”

From a Next.js / App Router perspective

Strong opinion (since you’re building a template)

Bottom line

1️⃣ Verify they are being served (most important)

Robots

Sitemap

2️⃣ Confirm correct placement (quick sanity check)

✅ The clean rule to remember

What is going on (root cause)

The correct and permanent fix (do these in order)

✅ 1️⃣ Fix the import path casing (mandatory)

1. What `@latest` would install today

What `@next/swc-*` actually is

Using `react-scroll-to-top`

Why Navbar is in `layout.tsx`

Why Footer is in `page.tsx`

When should Footer move to `layout.tsx`?

What `next build` shows you (even without static export)

Layer 1 — Rendering mode (what `next build` shows)

✅ Using `npm run build` now:

1️⃣ How `app/page.tsx` metadata hooks into OG images

3️⃣ How Next.js `<Link>` actually works (mental model)

4️⃣ Why it works in `npm run dev`

5️⃣ Why it fails in `out/` (static)