Refactor Algolia search to use external js/algolia-search.js (remove duplicate inline implementation)

[tanishqio]

Problem

The Algolia search logic currently exists in two places:

• _includes/algolia.html — active inline implementation (used in production)
• js/algolia-search.js — unused external implementation

This results in duplicate code and creates confusion about which version is canonical.

Why this matters

• Violates single source of truth (logic exists in two files)
• Makes future changes error-prone
• Inline JS cannot be browser-cached
• Increases complexity inside layout templates
• The external JS file currently appears unused

Proposed solution

• Keep _includes/algolia.html only for passing Liquid configuration variables
• Load js/algolia-search.js as the single implementation file
• Remove the duplicate inline logic

This would:

• Consolidate the implementation
• Enable browser caching
• Simplify templates
• Reduce maintenance risk

No visual or functional changes are intended.

---

Since _includes/algolia.html was recently modified (Escape-key improvement), I wanted to open this issue first before proceeding with any structural refactor.

[Parth-Garg2629]

hi @tanishqio i tried fixing this issue

[anuj452005]

Hi @tanishqio can i also work on this ??

[tanishqio]

Looked through both PRs properly:-
#823 does preserve the Escape key and the Ctrl+K placeholder, good. But algolia-search.js still has Jekyll front matter, which means it can't be cleanly migrated to Hugo down the line (#691).

#801's window.ALGOLIA_CONFIG bridge is the right call architecturally, Liquid stays in the template, JS stays pure. But the last commit (58f121e) seems to have dropped the Escape key handler and the dynamic keyboard shortcut placeholder that were already live on the site.

So neither is quite complete yet. The right fix would be #801's bridge + #823's keyboard handling. Happy to share context on what the Escape behaviour was doing if that's useful , I was the one who added it.

[precice-bot]

This issue has been mentioned on preCICE Forum on Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://precice.discourse.group/t/gsoc-2026-introduction-tanishq-bhakar-website-modernization/2804/1

[MakisH]

Thank you for pointing this out. Deleting an unused file can happen directly in a PR and does not need an issue. I also understand how a long description seems to be needed sometimes, but in the case of trivial issues, a short sentence makes the PRs easier to review.

I removed the confusing/duplicate file in #851.