Mark issues as triaged when they are assigned

[damccorm]

This automatically marks issues that have been assigned as not awaiting triage. Example of this working and removing the label when it should, and not removing it when it shouldn't

Part of #21684

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Choose reviewer(s) and mention them in a comment (R: @username).
• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: "addresses [BEAM-121] Add DisplayData for IO transforms #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment "fixes #" instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI.

[asf-ci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[asf-ci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[asf-ci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[asf-ci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[asf-ci]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[damccorm]

Note: This might feel redundant since we're also assigning the issue, which might lead you to expect the other workflow to trigger and do this. That won't happen because GitHub doesn't trigger any events that were initiated by the github bot itself to infinite trigger loops.

[damccorm]

R: @kennknowles

[kennknowles]

This seems fine. My first look at these files. Is shell script and curl really the best option for interacting here? Not a problem now but it raises the complexity bar for drop-in changes for a lot of people I think. Like python or javascript with a GH API library might be an option if things get any more complex?

[damccorm]

Like python or javascript with a GH API library might be an option if things get any more complex?

Yeah, in general I agree (and that's what I've done for most actions things), for shorter ones like these bash is nice though because its one less layer of indirection. If we did anything beyond string matching and a curl request (which comes straight from the docs https://docs.github.com/en/rest/issues/labels#remove-a-label-from-an-issue), I'd want to move it out.

FWIW, Javascript has a built in gh client that is pretty easy to use (e.g.

beam/scripts/ci/pr-bot/shared/githubUtils.ts

Line 37 in 913c81e

awaitgetGitHubClient().rest.issues.createComment({

), so that's the route I'd generally recommend for more complex stuff over python (which has one but its not released by GH)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #21790 (913c81e) into master (d83da39) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 83.17%.

❗ Current head 913c81e differs from pull request most recent head b8b736e. Consider uploading reports for the commit b8b736e to get more accurate results

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #21790 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 74.01% 74.01% =======================================
Files 698 698 Lines 92224 92224 =======================================
Hits 68263 68263 Misses 22710 22710 Partials 1251 1251 

Flag	Coverage Δ
go	50.93% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/opcounters.py	84.82% <66.66%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/transforms/cy_combiners.py	58.40% <69.56%> (ø)
...on/apache_beam/runners/direct/sdf_direct_runner.py	35.53% <75.00%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/common.py	87.94% <75.90%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/utils/counters.py	86.74% <85.71%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/typehints/batch.py	86.23% <90.47%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/transforms/core.py	92.14% <92.00%> (ø)
...thon/apache_beam/ml/inference/sklearn_inference.py	92.50% <95.23%> (ø)
...eam/transforms/py_dataflow_distribution_counter.py	96.29% <100.00%> (ø)
sdks/python/apache_beam/transforms/window.py	87.05% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 11 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d83da39...b8b736e. Read the comment docs.