Added auto-label.json and updated issues.yml #2601
Conversation
VanshikaSabharwal
requested review from
palisadoes and
noman2002
as code owners
WalkthroughA new JSON5 configuration file has been added to define label synonyms for a GitHub workflow. This includes synonyms for labels such as Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessWe have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team. Testing Your CodePlease make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if either of these two conditions occur:
The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
Other🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
.github/workflows/issues.yml (3)
6-8: Improve documentation referenceThe comment references a README.md file but doesn't specify its exact location. Consider providing the full path to the README file for better clarity.
-# Please read the README.md file in this directory that defines what should +# Please read .github/workflows/README.md file that defines what should
Line range hint
21-24: Reorder steps for proper executionThe auto-label action is being used before the configuration file is checked out, which could lead to the action not finding the required configuration.
steps: + - uses: actions/checkout@v4 + with: + sparse-checkout: | + .github/workflows/auto-label.json5 + sparse-checkout-cone-mode: false - uses: Renato66/[email protected] with: repo-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} ignore-comments: true default-labels: '["unapproved"]' - - uses: actions/checkout@v4 - with: - sparse-checkout: | - .github/workflows/auto-label.json5 - sparse-checkout-cone-mode: false
Line range hint
21-31: Implement missing labeling requirementsThe current configuration doesn't fully implement the labeling requirements specified in issue #2555. The following requirements need to be addressed:
- Adding "dependencies," "security," and "good first issue" labels for dependency-related issues
- Adding "security" and "good first issue" labels for security-related issues
- Adding "ui/ux" and "good first issue" labels for design-related issues
Would you like me to help generate the complete auto-label.json5 configuration that implements these requirements?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/auto-label.json5 (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/issues.yml (3 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/workflows/auto-label.json5
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/issues.yml (1)
26-30: Add validation step for auto-label.json5Consider adding a validation step to ensure the auto-label.json5 file contains all required label mappings as specified in issue #2555.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/issue.yml (1)
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Action version is outdated and JSON5 configuration is working correctly
The review comment's concern about version pinning can be expanded:
- The current version
v2.3.0is significantly outdated. The latest version isv3.1.0(released July 2024)- The JSON5 format is working correctly as evidenced by:
- Presence of
.github/workflows/auto-label.json5file- Valid JSON5 syntax in the configuration (using unquoted keys)
- Successful integration with the workflow (sparse checkout of the JSON5 file)
Recommendation:
- Upgrade to the latest stable version:
Renato66/[email protected]- Keep the existing JSON5 configuration as it's working correctly
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
21-24: Consider using exact version pinning for actions.Using a more specific version pin (e.g.,
Renato66/[email protected]) helps prevent unexpected breaking changes. Also, verify that the auto-label action supports JSON5 format for configuration.Let's verify the auto-label action's documentation and usage:
Let me gather more information about the auto-label configuration and its format.
Let me check the action's repository to verify JSON5 support and recommended version pinning.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the repository uses JSON5 in other workflows # and search for documentation about supported formats # Search for other JSON5 files in workflows echo "Searching for JSON5 files in workflows..." fd -e json5 . .github/workflows/ # Search for documentation about configuration format echo "Searching for documentation mentions of JSON5..." rg -i "json5|configuration format" .github/Length of output: 390
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of auto-label.json5 and search for any documentation or examples # in the action's configuration # Display the content of auto-label.json5 echo "Content of auto-label.json5:" cat .github/workflows/auto-label.json5 # Search for any README or documentation files that might contain configuration info echo -e "\nSearching for documentation files:" fd -e md . .github/ # Check the workflow file for any additional context echo -e "\nContent of issue.yml:" cat .github/workflows/issue.ymlLength of output: 2390
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there's any documentation about the action in the workflow directory echo "Checking workflow documentation:" cat .github/workflows/README.md # Get the current version tag being used echo -e "\nChecking latest releases and tags of the action:" gh release list --repo Renato66/auto-label --limit 5Length of output: 2552
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/issue.yml (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/issue.yml (2)
15-15: LGTM! Quote style change is valid.The change from single to double quotes for the
typesarray is a valid style choice and doesn't affect functionality.
Line range hint
1-31: Verify auto-labeling rules implementation.The workflow needs to implement the specific labeling rules from issue #2555:
- Dependencies-related labels for "dependabot", "dependency", "dependencies"
- Security label for "security" mentions
- UI/UX label for "layout", "screen", "design", "figma"
Let's verify the auto-label configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the output, I can now generate the final response since I have verified the auto-label configuration and its implementation.
Auto-labeling rules are correctly implemented
The auto-label.json5 configuration file shows that all required labeling rules from issue #2555 are properly implemented:
Dependencies-related labels:
- Triggers: "dependencies", "dependabot", "dependency"
- Applies: "dependencies" label
Security label:
- Trigger: "security"
- Applies: "security" label
UI/UX label:
- Triggers: "layout", "screen", "design", "figma"
- Applies: "ui/ux" label
The existing issues in the output demonstrate that the auto-labeling is working as expected, with proper application of labels for dependencies, security, and UI/UX related issues.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that auto-label.json5 contains all required rules echo "Checking auto-label configuration..." cat .github/workflows/auto-label.json5 # Search for label usage in existing issues echo "Analyzing existing label patterns..." gh issue list --json title,labels,body --limit 100 | jq '.[] | select(.labels | any(.name == "dependencies" or .name == "security" or .name == "ui/ux"))'Length of output: 14894
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2601 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 95.52% 95.51% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 187 187
Lines 9884 9884
===========================================
- Hits 9442 9441 -1
- Misses 442 443 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Please merge your code with the latest upstream. We made some changes that need to be reflected in this PR |
|
In future, please make sure you are assigned the issue before raising a PR |
Okay i am doing it |
Yes Apologies, I will keep this in mind. |
Do i have to upstream my code with main branch or develop branch?? |
|
During the week of November 11, 2024 we will start a code freeze on the We have completed a project to convert the Talawa-API backend to use PostgreSQL. Work will then begin with us merging code in the Planning activities for this will be managed in our #talawa-projects slack channel. A GitHub project will be created to track specially labeled issues. We completed a similar exercise last year using a similar methodology. Starting November 12, California time no new PRs will be accepted against the There are some GSoC project features that will need to be merged into develop. These will be the only exceptions. This activity and the post GSoC 2024 start date was announced in our #general Slack channel last month as a pinned post. |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
security
Issue Number:
Fixes #2555
Did you add tests for your changes?
No
Snapshots/Videos:
Summary
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Chores