-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add test to check for Contributor and Contributor+ Checklists #9772
Conversation
Test is failing for a different reason than expected, I will look into it. |
Ok this is now failing as expected per the tests |
Tests still failing until a C+ (AKA reviewer) checks their checklist completely off. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A couple thoughts, though not necessarily blockers
const _ = require('underscore'); | ||
const GitHubUtils = require('../../../libs/GithubUtils'); | ||
|
||
const issue = github.context.payload.issue ? github.context.payload.issue.number : github.context.payload.pull_request.number; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are context
, payload
, and pull_request
guaranteed to exist? Would be slightly safer to use optional chaining:
const issue = github.context.payload.issue ? github.context.payload.issue.number : github.context.payload.pull_request.number; | |
const issue = github.context?.payload?.issue ? github.context.payload.issue.number : github.context?.payload?.pull_request?.number; |
return; | ||
} | ||
|
||
console.log('All checklist are complete 🎉'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
console.log('All checklist are complete 🎉'); | |
console.log('All checklists are complete 🎉'); |
const contributorChecklist = `#### Contributor (PR Author) Checklist | ||
- [x] I linked the correct issue in the \`### Fixed Issues\` section above | ||
- [x] I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR | ||
- [x] I added steps for local testing in the \`Tests\` section | ||
- [x] I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the \`QA steps\` section | ||
- [x] I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct) | ||
- [x] I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline) | ||
- [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on [all platforms](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#make-sure-you-can-test-on-all-platforms) | ||
- [x] I ran the tests on **all platforms** & verified they passed on: | ||
- [x] iOS / native | ||
- [x] Android / native | ||
- [x] iOS / Safari | ||
- [x] Android / Chrome | ||
- [x] MacOS / Chrome | ||
- [x] MacOS / Desktop | ||
- [x] I verified there are no console errors (if there’s a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed) | ||
- [x] I followed proper code patterns (see [Reviewing the code](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/PR_REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md#reviewing-the-code)) | ||
- [x] I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. \`toggleReport\` and not \`onIconClick\`) | ||
- [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory | ||
- [x] I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained “why” the code was doing something instead of only explaining “what” the code was doing. | ||
- [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product was added in all \`src/languages/*\` files | ||
- [x] I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy. | ||
- [x] I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named “index.js”. All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README. | ||
- [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in [\`STYLE.md\`](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/STYLE.md#jsdocs)) were followed | ||
- [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers | ||
- [x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the [Review Guidelines](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/PR_REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md) | ||
- [x] I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like \`Avatar\`, I verified the components using \`Avatar\` are working as expected) | ||
- [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR does not include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests) | ||
- [x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such | ||
- [x] If a new component is created I verified that: | ||
- [x] A similar component does not exist in the codebase | ||
- [x] All props are defined accurately and each prop has a \`/** comment above it */\` | ||
- [x] Any functional components have the \`displayName\` property | ||
- [x] The file is named correctly | ||
- [x] The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone | ||
- [x] The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else | ||
- [x] For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to \`this\` properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for \`onClick={this.submit}\` the method \`this.submit\` should be bound to \`this\` in the constructor) | ||
- [x] Any internal methods bound to \`this\` are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid \`this.submit = this.submit.bind(this);\` if \`this.submit\` is never passed to a component event handler like \`onClick\`) | ||
- [x] All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method | ||
- [x] The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose and it is | ||
- [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that: | ||
- [x] A similar style doesn’t already exist | ||
- [x] The style can’t be created with an existing [StyleUtils](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/src/styles/StyleUtils.js) function (i.e. \`StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG\`) | ||
- [x] If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like \`Avatar\` is modified, I verified that \`Avatar\` is working as expected in all cases) | ||
- [x] If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I feel like this approach of essentially duplicating the checklist text here and searching for its presence via includes
has the potential to create headaches. If the checklist text changes between the opening of the PR and the time it's being reviewed, the check could fail until the author/reviewer hunts down the latest version of the list and copy/pastes it in. For example there have been already updates to the checklist such as this since the opening of this PR. (I suppose you could argue that's a feature not a bug, but 😐). Without digging into the workflow code a bit, it might not be obvious how to fix the failure.
Additionally, the duplication means the lists are prone to diverging (e.g. if someone updates PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
without updating this file). Would it be possible to read the contents of the MD file (or the PR body?), use a regex to isolate the checklist, then search for any unchecked boxes instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Without digging into the workflow code a bit, it might not be obvious how to fix the failure.
This is all true and fair feedback! I can update the error message, but will also update the tests with this new change from main
.
Would it be possible to read the contents of the MD file
Yes, it should be possible to read the PR checklist template as it's in the repo, but I do wonder if it's the direction we want to head in? We've been discussing how to improve this and have been discussing possibly having a bot comment with the checklist depending on the contents of the PR.
Additionally, I did initially try doing this via regex, and it's a very nasty regex.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
having a bot comment with the checklist depending on the contents of the PR
Oh nice, that does sound like a fabulous alternative
it's a very nasty regex
😬 Fair
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok so for now can we use this as a "V1" and then improve with a 🤖 in the future for specific PR checklists?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, I'm on board
Bump |
As I check off each box it's triggering the GitHub action to run - I wonder if there's a way to delay that? |
I hadn't previously realized that checking off boxes that are in a However, now that all boxes are checked, the action is still failing @AndrewGable |
Thank you Amy, I will look into this soon. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Ok @roryabraham and @amyevans this has been updated! I've tested it quite a lot and improved it from the V1. It now only runs on PR comments, PR reviews, and PRs that contain a checkbox item, so it should limit the noise. |
.github/actions/javascript/contributorChecklist/contributorChecklist.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.github/actions/javascript/contributorChecklist/contributorChecklist.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.github/actions/javascript/contributorChecklist/contributorChecklist.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@roryabraham Do you want to review? |
description: Auth token for New Expensify Github | ||
required: true | ||
runs: | ||
using: 'node12' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use node 16?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah yes - I will update to use nvm version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Guess we can't, I will use node16 👍
@AndrewGable looks like this was merged without passing tests. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the |
Tests had passed 👎 |
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
🚀 Deployed to staging by @AndrewGable in version: 1.1.97-0 🚀
|
Details
Adds a check for a complete contributor and contributor plus checklist on every PR. It works as follows:
Fixed Issues
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/214975
Tests
PR Review Checklist
Contributor (PR Author) Checklist
### Fixed Issues
section aboveTests
sectionQA steps
sectiontoggleReport
and notonIconClick
)src/languages/*
filesSTYLE.md
) were followedAvatar
, I verified the components usingAvatar
are working as expected)/** comment above it */
displayName
propertythis
properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor)this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG
)Avatar
is modified, I verified thatAvatar
is working as expected in all cases)PR Reviewer Checklist
### Fixed Issues
section aboveTests
sectionQA steps
sectiontoggleReport
and notonIconClick
).src/languages/*
filesSTYLE.md
) were followedAvatar
, I verified the components usingAvatar
have been tested & I retested again)/** comment above it */
displayName
propertythis
properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor)this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG
)Avatar
is modified, I verified thatAvatar
is working as expected in all cases)QA Steps