New contributors can just indicate that they are working on the issue
without requesting assignment.
That shouldd reduce the burden of assigned issues that are not actually
being worked on, and new contributors waiting for a maintainer to
asssign them the issue.
---------
Co-authored-by: Danny Mösch <danny.moesch@icloud.com>
This script is not working any more in the GitHub actions jobs and I
can't reproduce this locally, so I've added some debug output to try to
help find the problem.
It's common to use the /cherry-pick command on a PR to create a backport
request. However, this creates a lot of clutter in the LLVM Release
Status project, because we end up with two items in the project, one for
the original PR and one for the new PR.
This change will set the status of the original PR to Done once the new
PR (for the release branch) is created. This will save release managers
a lot of work of having to manually updated the status for PRs that
contain backport requests.
The answer to many requests in issues to be assigned to users is often
"just create a pull request". That's in contradiction to the
"introductory issue" instructions posted by the GitHub bot.
This change updates the instructions, mentioning the shortcut of "just
creating a PR". Moreover, it now explains linking PRs to issues in order
to close them automatically upon merge.
This makes it possible to rebase the branch using the Web UI, which
makes it easier to manually merge the PRs. Manual merge is required when
squash merge won't preserve author information of the backport.
When a backport request is made, the resulting pull request will have a
title like this:
<release branch>: <First line of HEAD commit for the branch>
And a body that says:
Backport <commit0> <commit1> ..
Requested By: <user>
This will allow us to track the state of the backport request in the PR,
rather than in the issue. The state updates for PRs can be automated, so
this will save us some triage work.
This change adds a comment to the first PR from a new contributor that
is merged, which tells them what to expect post merge from the build
bots.
How they will be notified, where to ask questions, that you're more
likely to be reverted than in other projects, etc. The information
overlaps with, and links to
https://llvm.org/docs/MyFirstTypoFix.html#myfirsttypofix-issues-after-landing-your-pr.
So that users who simply read the email are still aware, and know where
to follow up if they do get reports.
To do this, I have added a hidden HTML comment to the new contributor
greeting comment. This workflow will look for that to tell if the author
of the PR was a new contributor at the time they opened the merge. It
has to be done this way because as soon as the PR is merged, they are by
GitHub's definition no longer a new contributor and I suspect that their
author association will be "contributor" instead.
I cannot 100% confirm that without a whole lot of effort and probably
breaking GitHub's terms of service, but it's fairly cheap to work around
anyway. It seems rare / almost impossible to reopen a PR in llvm at
least, but in case it does happen the buildbot info comment has its own
hidden HTML comment. If we find this we will not post another copy of
the same information.
We used to support a /branch comment to specify a branch with commits to
backport to the release branch. However, now that we can use pull
requests this is not needed.
This also simplifies the process, because now the cherry-pick job can
create the pull request directly instead of having it split across two
separate jobs.
This is currently broken, because the check is performed on the wrong
repository. repo here is llvm/llvm-project, which is not a fork (so this
will always trigger), then we'll push a new branch to
llvmbot/llvm-project, and then again set the wrong owner, so we'll look
for the branch in llvm/llvm-project rather than llvmbot/llvm-project.
Rather than fixing this, I'm removing the code entirely, as it shouldn't
be needed anymore (llvmbot/llvm-project is a fork of llvm/llvm-project).
This includes some commonly needed information like how to add
reviewers.
This is implemented as a job before the labeler, so that on a new PR the
comment is added before there are any subscribers and only the author
gets a nofitication.
The labeler job depends on the greeter having run or having been
skipped. So if the PR wasn't just opened, or it's from a regular
contributor, the labeling still happens.
But we can be sure that when a greeting comment is left, it's the very
first thing we do.
Before this patch, the github automation script would fail when trying
to escape the text of a PR/issue description that was empty as the
Github library returns None instead of an empty string in those
scenarios. This patch special cases this and makes the escape function
return an empty string when given a value of None.
Currently the email that gets sent out to people subscribing to a label
that the bot tags on the PR doesn't include any authorship information
which some people are interested in having. This patch adds an author
field to the message with the relevant information.
* This avoid pinging folks on all issue when they got pinged on bugzilla
eons ago
* Avoid formatting bugs when there is html in the issue description
* Truncate the list of files and the diff independently of each other.
This avoids truncating cutting a file line in 2 and to cut in the middle
of html markup. This is a fringe case but it does happen when people
accidentally push weird branches conflicting on all the files.
This will reduce the number of notifications created when a pull request
label is added. Each team will only get a notification when their team's
label is added and not when other teams' labels are added.
This new workflow will make it possible for people to subscribe to pull
requests based on the labels that are added. Labels will be added
automatically to the pull requests based on the modified files and each
label will be associated with a GitHub team that will be notified when
the label is added.
See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/changes-to-pull-request-subscription-system/73296
If you pass a NULL reivew ID to the differential.revision.search API,
it returns all revisions and we were just taking the first one and
assuming it was associated with the commit in the PR.
We need to exit early if we can't find a Phabricator review associated
with a commit.
When there is a backport request, the GitHub Action that handles the
backport will now automatically assign the issue to the user(s) who
approved the commit in Phabricator and create an issue comment asking
them to review the request.
Reviewed By: thieta, kwk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126423
We started using the llvm/llvm-project-release-prs repo for
backport pull requests, but since this repo is not a fork of
llvm/llvm-project it will reject pull requests from other repos. In
order to fix this, when ever someone uses the /branch command to request
a branch be merged into the release branch, we first copy the branch to
the llvm-project-release-prs repo and then create the pull request.
Reviewed By: thieta
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126940
The /branch and /cherry-pick commands only work when an isssue has
a milestone, so give the user a helpful error message when they
try these commands on issue without a milestone.
Reviewed By: thieta, kwk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125744
