-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
chore(pr-lint): provide output to user in comments #22029
Conversation
The PR linter now provides the output of a failure in the comments. This also deletes a pr linter file not being used.
Go away. Not ready yet. |
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.
This PR does not fulfill the following requirement: Fixes must contain a change to an integration test file. PRs must pass status checks before we can provide a meaningful review.
This reverts commit 3ffec41.
@Mergifyio update |
✅ Branch has been successfully updated |
Adding a I'm not totally sure of the error message content, so please let me know what you think of that. @Naumel, @rix0rrr, @corymhall would love to get your feedback on this. Note that the local testing instructions had to be deleted in this case because to write to a PR, we can't use an unencrypted client. |
Also, FYI - my next intended step here is to write more validation for the PR title and contents. |
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.
It's awesome that we are finally doing this!
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.
The PR Linter fails with the following errors:
❌ Features must contain a change to an integration test file and the resulting snapshot.
❌ Breaking changes should be indicated by starting a line with 'BREAKING CHANGE: ', variations are not allowed. (found: 'BREAKING CHANGE (Not really, manually testing the other linter settings.)').
❌ The title of this PR must specify the module name that the first breaking change should be associated to.
PRs must pass status checks before we can provide a meaningful review.
PR updated. Dissmissing previous PRLinter Review.
@corymhall I didn't mean to delete your comment. I had a bug in the cleanup I was trying to perform but, ultimately, decided that deleting old review comments from our automation didn't actually reduce the noise. |
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.
The Pull Request Linter fails with the following errors:
❌ Features must contain a change to an integration test file and the resulting snapshot.
PRs must pass status checks before we can provide a meaningful review.
Pull Request updated. Dissmissing previous PRLinter Review.
I'll unfudge the conflict merge. |
@Mergifyio update |
✅ Branch has been successfully updated |
@Mergifyio update |
✅ Branch has been successfully updated |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
The PR linter now provides the output of a failure in the comments. This also updates the node version in the action. A couple extra notes for reviewer ease: - Now that we are writing to the PR, we cannot test with an unauthenticated client so I deleted that section of the documentaion. - `github-api` did not have the apis needed for this change so I switched out its use for `@actions/github` - individual behavior tests no longer throw LinterError. Instead all the errors are collected and displayed to the contributor before the error is thrown. - in `parser` the check on line 14 `if (!parsed.scope)` would never have been reached because another test threw an error in every case before getting to this line so I've removed it here. It wasn't doing anything and that error case is already covered elsewhere. - The many many many changes requested comments in this PR were intentional tests. It's a lot of noise, but useful for showing behavior. - Initially I used the wrong token so `github-actions` was performing the reviews. It's now fixed to be `aws-cdk-automation` ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)? *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
The PR linter now provides the output of a failure in the comments. This also updates the node version in the action.
A couple extra notes for reviewer ease:
github-api
did not have the apis needed for this change so I switched out its use for@actions/github
parser
the check on line 14if (!parsed.scope)
would never have been reached because another test threw an error in every case before getting to this line so I've removed it here. It wasn't doing anything and that error case is already covered elsewhere.github-actions
was performing the reviews. It's now fixed to beaws-cdk-automation
All Submissions:
Adding new Unconventional Dependencies:
New Features
yarn integ
to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e.yarn integ
without--dry-run
)?By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license