Skip to content
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

@rustbot ready alias to switch to waiting on review? #1339

Closed
joshtriplett opened this issue May 4, 2021 · 12 comments
Closed

@rustbot ready alias to switch to waiting on review? #1339

joshtriplett opened this issue May 4, 2021 · 12 comments
Assignees

Comments

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

joshtriplett commented May 4, 2021

I would love to see simpler invocations that we can recommend to PR authors, that handle switching the various "waiting on" labels.

@rustbot ready
@rustbot waiting-on-author (or just "author")

Also, could we define sets of mutually exclusive labels, such as the various "waiting on" labels, so that you only have to add one and the bot will automatically remove others?

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented May 4, 2021

Also, could we define sets of mutually exclusive labels, such as the various "waiting on" labels, so that you only have to add one and the bot will automatically remove others?

I really want S-waiting-on-help for situations where technically it's waiting-on-author but realistically that won't happen without outside input.

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I at least only regularly look at waiting-on-review; any other state is likely to get entirely lost. I think it's reasonable to ask the reviewer to take point at either reassigning or identifying and pursuing that help.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

jyn514 commented May 24, 2021

Duplicate of #553.

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is a great idea. I find maintaining these labels pretty tedious. I'd be happy to help mentor someone here. I'm going to leave some notes.

@Llandy3d
Copy link
Contributor

@rustbot claim

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I would also like the bot to pay attention to GH reviews. Here is what I would suggest:

  • when the assigned reviewer leaves a GH review, if it is "changes requested", we should change the state of "waiting on author" (and leave a comment to that effect)
  • add a @rustbot ready command to change the review to S-waiting-on-reviewer and probably add a comment pinging the assigned reviewer

The question is how easy/hard this will be to do =)

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I'm thinking about the first part first -- the GH review with "changes requested". My guess is that this trigger a notification?

If so, I guess we want to edit this function:

pub async fn handle(ctx: &Context, event: &Event) -> anyhow::Result<()> {

@Llandy3d
Copy link
Contributor

After a first analysis, if we would want to support simpler single word abbreviations, from the example above ready & author for switching labels, we could create a shortcut.rs handler to keep it open for more additions down the line, what do you think ?

I also wonder if it would be better for the GH review section to be its own issue since the two are different in scope 🤔

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@Llandy3d that makes sense to me, yes

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

Just filed #1373

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

No, the handlers are per-function, that is, for this feature it likely makes sense to either:

  • Add to the relabeling handler (I wouldn't do this)
  • Create a new handler that handles the relevant events

It's likely that the github review is not too well integrated into our processing right now, so that may need some modifications to the github.rs file to parse the webhook events (at least adding some fields).

@kellda
Copy link
Contributor

kellda commented Sep 10, 2021

I think it has been fixed by #1381...

@Kobzol Kobzol closed this as completed Feb 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants