Refactor "Issue Trigger" for issue created from "Inactive Members"

[t-will-gillis]

Fixes #7075

What changes did you make?

• a.) In issue-trigger.yml, added HACKFORLA_GRAPHQL_TOKEN
• b.) In check-labels.js, added code lines 37-40 to retrieve issue and status field id values, then change issue's status to "Questions / In Review"
• c.) In post-labels-comment.js, added check at line 38 so that if issue title matches "Hack for LA website bot..." the function returns without adding a comment.
• d.) Added new status-field-ids.js
• e.) Added new module mutate-issue-status.js (thank you @moazDev1 )
• f.) Added new module query-issue-info.js (same!)
• g.) Throughout, add explicit semi-colons where missing

Why did you make the changes (we will use this info to test)?

• a.) When using a GraphQL mutation, we need a token with "Project" scopes enabled
• b.) This restores the behavior of the workflow before migration to Projects Beta
• c.) The comment is not needed since all labels are present
• d.) This file added b/c these values will be needed for other functions, and since these ids do not change it makes more sense to have a simple lookup for the value than performing a GraphQL query each time we need a value
• e.) This file mutates / changes the status of an issue given the issues id value
• f.) This file returns an issue's given its issue number. Note that this is done in GraphQL b/c the typical REST API for looking up issues does not seem to return the correct id value
• g.) Did this to anticipate and avoid Code QL alerts

Screenshots of Proposed Changes Of The Website (if any, please do not screen shot code changes)

• No visual changes to website

Notes for Testing

In order to review this PR you will need to have your repo environment set up for testing.

• See Hack for LA's GitHub Actions (revised doc). This document should be mostly up to date still, but if you run into problems let us know

• To find your own id values to use while testing:

  • Go to GitHub Explorer
  • In the query field on the left, enter:

  query findStatusSubfieldIds ($login: String!, $projNum: Int!, $fieldName: String!   ) {
    user(login: $login) {
      projectV2(number: $projNum) {
        id
        field(name:$fieldName) { 
          ... on ProjectV2SingleSelectField { 	
          id options{ 
              id
              name
              ... on ProjectV2SingleSelectFieldOption {
                id
              }
            } 
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
  

  and in the 'Variables' section underneath, replace for your GitHub login and project number:

  {
    "login":"<replace with yours>",
    "projNum": <replace with yours>,
    "fieldName": "Status"
  }
  

  • Next, create a new issue and give it the title "The Hack for LA website bot removed me"
  • A successful test will result in the issue receiving five labels including Complexity: Small, Feature: Administrative, ready for dev leads, role: dev leads, and size: 0.25pt. Additionally, the issue will be moved to the status of "Questions / In Review"

• Successful run of "Issue Trigger"

• Issue created Yours will not look exactly like this...

[github-actions]

Want to review this pull request? Take a look at this documentation for a step by step guide!

---

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.

git checkout -b t-will-gillis-refactor-issue-trigger-7075 gh-pages
git pull https://github.com/t-will-gillis/website.git refactor-issue-trigger-7075

[moazDev1]

Availability: Sat - Mon 6 PM - 10 PM
ETA: 8/1

[moazDev1]

Hey @t-will-gillis, thanks for working on this issue and making this clear description of what you have done!

I created a couple of issues and everything worked perfectly for me. Issues including the title "Hack for LA Website Bot" automatically added the required labels, and other issues with missing labels triggered a comment asking to add the missing labels.

I just have a question regarding line 40 in check-labels.js:

mutateIssueStatus(github, context, itemId, newStatusValue);

Dones't this function need await before it since it's async? I know it works which's surprising but just want to mentioned that. Otherwise, everything looks perfect for me.

[t-will-gillis]

Thanks @moazDev1! I added await as you suggested

[moazDev1]

Thank you @t-will-gillis, everything looks perfect for me.

Keep going!

[t-will-gillis]

Thank you for reviewing this, @moazDev1!