refactor: moving issue-assigning logic to make it re-usable #3284
Conversation
| - uses: actions/github-script@v6 | ||
| with: | ||
| script: | | ||
| const assignees = ['mstoykov', 'codebien', 'olegbespalov', 'oleiade']; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You might consider making it an input for this action to avoid changing the implementation whenever we need to add/remove a team member from this list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we will use this mainly as the default single source of the truth for most actions, I expect the input to be empty.
However, I don't mind implementing the custom input with stressing that it's still not the generic auto-assigner, but the k6's one and we have no promises to break it 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe let's first test that it works across repos and then we can start changing it?
But yeah - it will probably be nice if this reads the CodeOwners file ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally, yeah it could have many more features, depending on our capacity and desire to maintain it, but as the first iteration, even the current version should cover our main pain, the issues discovery in other repos.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the record, I've changed my mind, and we shouldn't provide input here but use a static list to keep this as the single source of truth and have no way to create the case where the list will be distributed and overrided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having this list fetched directly from the GitHub team's members would be great. Then we could also inspect the members' status and exclude the busy people (but we require https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/42788).
Ofc, all of this after we have validated the current implementation, that sounds perfect as a starting point.
| with: | ||
| script: | | ||
| const assignees = ['mstoykov', 'codebien', 'olegbespalov', 'oleiade']; | ||
| const assigneeCount = 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this one could be an input too?
|
@olegbespalov should we merge grafana/xk6-grpc#36 before for testing or would it not work? |
|
Okay, as agreed internally, we first try this as the wrapper. Later we could change actually mechanism for the issue assigning it to anything more powerful. |
|
It doesn't work, I'll rever this and go with the re-usable workflow instead of the action 😢 |
| assignees: getNRandom(assigneeCount, assignees), | ||
| }); | ||
| - name: Assign k6's maintainer to issue | ||
| uses: ./.github/actions/issue-assigner/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe you need to give repo@master/path ?
What?
Moving issue assigner logic to make it re-usable.
Why?
Hopefully, that way, we could have a single source of the truth for the issue assigned code, and re-use this in our other repositories while waiting for the better implementation of the codeowners.
Checklist
make ci-like-lint) and all checks pass.make tests) and all tests pass.