ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed #7379

gauthierpetetin · 2023-10-04T05:18:02Z

Description

This PR introduces a new Github action, to achieve the following:

Check if issue matches an existing issue template ('general-issue.yml' or 'bug-report.yml')
Add an INVALID-ISSUE-TEMPLATE label in case issue doesn't match any of the templates
Add an external-contributor label in case issue was created by someone external to the MetaMask organisation
Add a regression-prod-x.y.z label when possible, when x.y.z value can be extracted from 'bug-report.yml' template

We will be able to leverage regression-prod-x.y.z and external-contributor labels to improve our bug triage process and our metrics collection.

Same PR for Extension repo

Manual testing steps

Go on this test repo
Fill the bug report issue form
Make sure the release version you indicate in the form has x.y.z format
Click on "Submit new issue"
Wait for ~30s and 2 new labels shall appear on the issue you just created (regression-prod-x.y.z and external-contributor)
Edit the issue's description by indicating a different release version
Wait for ~30s and the regression-prod-x.y.z shall be updated accordingly
Edit the issue by deleting the whole description
Wait for ~30s and the INVALID-ISSUE-TEMPLATE shall be added

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

NA

After

https://recordit.co/Sq7fvCwkr5

Related issues

Fixes https://github.com/MetaMask/mobile-planning/issues/1293

Pre-merge author checklist

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

…tected with a label The new bug report template makes it mandatory to indicate what release version the bug was detected in. We want to exploit that information by extracting the version number from issue body and indicate it by adding corresponding regression prod label on the issue. In addition to it, we also want to add a label to indicate when the bug has been reported by someone external to the MetaMask organisation. We will be able to leverage these two new labels to improve our bug triage process and our metrics collection.

github-actions · 2023-10-04T05:18:13Z

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

socket-security · 2023-10-04T05:23:46Z

No top level dependency changes detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

socket-security · 2023-10-04T05:23:49Z

👍 Dependency issues cleared. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

This PR previously contained dependency changes with security issues that have been resolved, removed, or ignored.

codecov-commenter · 2023-10-04T05:37:08Z

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (19d8a77) 34.60% compared to head (5c30d3a) 34.60%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7379   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   34.60%   34.60%           
=======================================
  Files        1019     1019           
  Lines       27192    27192           
  Branches     2212     2212           
=======================================
  Hits         9409     9409           
  Misses      17295    17295           
  Partials      488      488

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

…s to achieve The github action was initially only meant to add regression-prod labels while the scope is nox extended, which is why it's worth renaming a few things to reflect it.

wachunei · 2023-10-05T18:14:51Z

Would it be possible for the issue template to indicate the required sections as HTML comments? I usually delete the screenshots sections when the code is not related to the UI, eg:

<!-- Required, don't delete -->
### Screenshots

Cal-L · 2023-10-09T17:01:29Z

Would it be possible for the issue template to indicate the required sections as HTML comments? I usually delete the screenshots sections when the code is not related to the UI, eg:

### Screenshots

@gauthierpetetin on Pedro's note - Would it make sense to check post editing if required fields are still populated and apply the invalid label accordingly? For example, I can edit the issue and provide an empty string in the description section and it would still be considered valid. Or do you think that would be too much friction for contributors?

gauthierpetetin · 2023-10-09T18:56:52Z

Would it be possible for the issue template to indicate the required sections as HTML comments?

@wachunei the majority of sections are optional in the new templates we introduced in September, and get automatically filled with _No response_ string in case you don't provide any info. Besides leaving the section as optional, the intention was to prevent behaviours where engineers would systematically delete all optional sections from issue's description, without considering them one by one and asking themselves whether or not they have some info to provide for each section. In your situation, would it be ok to leave the screenshots section empty, rather than deleting it?

Would it make sense to check post editing if required fields are still populated and apply the invalid label accordingly?

@Cal-L the Github action is triggered every time, issue gets created or updated (cf. here) and labels are updated accordingly. Does that correspond to what you suggest?

Cal-L · 2023-10-09T20:28:51Z

What I meant was if you delete the body of the description post issue creation, it doesn't see it as invalid.

gauthierpetetin · 2023-10-09T21:07:59Z

@Cal-L the behaviour you describe seems included in this PR (cf. second 25' in the recording). Do you confirm?

Cal-L · 2023-10-10T16:50:13Z

@Cal-L the behaviour you describe seems included in this PR (cf. second 25' in the recording). Do you confirm?

Since these changes are meant to verify the template and not necessarily the body content, will consider it out of scope.

Cal-L

Lgtm

…iles Nicholas Ellul raised that the script would not be able to retrieve list of organisations for users who have their GitHub set to private mode. As a consequence, these users would appear as external contributors while they are not. This commit introduces a different way to check if users belong to the MetaMask organisation, which allows to support even users with private profiles.

gauthierpetetin · 2023-10-11T20:47:13Z

I just pushed one last fix to address @NicholasEllul 's comment made here.

sethkfman

lgtm

sonarqubecloud · 2023-10-11T22:42:39Z

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

gauthierpetetin added team-mobile-client team-mobile-platform labels Oct 4, 2023

gauthierpetetin self-assigned this Oct 4, 2023

gauthierpetetin requested a review from a team as a code owner October 4, 2023 05:18

gauthierpetetin mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2023

Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed MetaMask/metamask-extension#21184

Merged

14 tasks

gauthierpetetin added the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Oct 4, 2023

gauthierpetetin added 2 commits October 5, 2023 08:11

fix(action): check if issue validates issue template

b7b9ea5

fix(action): renaming files to better describe what github action aim…

0048d47

…s to achieve The github action was initially only meant to add regression-prod labels while the scope is nox extended, which is why it's worth renaming a few things to reflect it.

gauthierpetetin changed the title ~~New action to indicate release version where bug was detected with a label~~ Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed Oct 5, 2023

Merge branch 'main' into feat/bug-report-labeling

4743937

Cal-L changed the title ~~Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed~~ improvement: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed Oct 10, 2023

Cal-L added No QA Needed Apply this label when your PR does not need any QA effort. and removed needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) labels Oct 10, 2023

Cal-L changed the title ~~improvement: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed~~ ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed Oct 10, 2023

Cal-L previously approved these changes Oct 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

gauthierpetetin dismissed Cal-L’s stale review via 3b6e5a1 October 11, 2023 20:27

gauthierpetetin requested a review from Cal-L October 11, 2023 20:47

sethkfman approved these changes Oct 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into feat/bug-report-labeling

5c30d3a

gauthierpetetin merged commit 76a677c into main Oct 11, 2023

gauthierpetetin deleted the feat/bug-report-labeling branch October 11, 2023 22:45

github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 11, 2023

metamaskbot added the release-7.10.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.10.0 label Oct 11, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed #7379

ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed #7379

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Oct 4, 2023

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

wachunei commented Oct 5, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 9, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 9, 2023

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 9, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 10, 2023

Cal-L left a comment

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 11, 2023

sethkfman left a comment

sonarqubecloud bot commented Oct 11, 2023

ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed #7379

ci: Github action to check issue body matches issues templates and add labels to issue when needed #7379

Conversation

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Description

Manual testing steps

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Related issues

Pre-merge author checklist

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

github-actions bot commented Oct 4, 2023

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

codecov-commenter commented Oct 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

wachunei commented Oct 5, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 9, 2023 • edited Loading

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 9, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 9, 2023

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 9, 2023

Cal-L commented Oct 10, 2023

Cal-L left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 11, 2023

sethkfman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sonarqubecloud bot commented Oct 11, 2023

gauthierpetetin commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

socket-security bot commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Oct 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Cal-L commented Oct 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading