New PR template by kennethshsu · Pull Request #1260 · casact/chainladder-python

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:23:15Z

Summary of Changes

Updated the PR template in accordance with the governing doc

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Closes#1240

Additional Context for Reviewers

There's not really a way for me to preview this, so I hope it goes well. Please let me know if something looks weird (don't know how to preview)

Checklist

I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

Note

Low Risk
Process-only change to the GitHub PR template with no runtime or library code impact.

Overview
Updates .github/pull_request_template.md so new PRs follow the project governing doc instead of the old single local-test checklist.

Adds an AI/LLM Usage section (with disclosure guidance), a hint on issue-linking keywords, and splits review into Submitter's and Reviewer's checklists covering governance adherence, title prefixes ([FIX], [FEAT], etc.), human attestation, ARCHITECTURE.md, linked issues, AI disclosure, docs/tests, reviewers, and CI. Section order and boilerplate comments are adjusted; the prior checklist item for uv run pytest / docs doctest is removed in favor of the governance-aligned items.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2015105. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-31T23:24:20Z

Pyright Type Completeness

View the full pyright --verifytypes output for this commit

Project (full chainladder package, at this PR's head): 15.2% of exported symbols fully typed (209 / 1377)

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Project (head)	209	111	1057	1377

Other symbols referenced but not exported by chainladder: 13

	Known	Ambiguous	Unknown	Total
Other (head)	3	1	9	13

Symbols without documentation:

Functions without docstring: 325
Functions without default param: 0
Classes without docstring: 10

Patch (exported symbols added or changed by this PR): no exported symbol type-completeness changes detected.

kennethshsu · 2026-08-31T23:25:51Z

@genedan @henrydingliu you guys had a comment in #1043 to add type hinting in the PR template, where is the best place for this? I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

codecov · 2026-08-31T23:28:18Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.90%. Comparing base (a72e835) to head (2015105).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1260 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.70% 91.90% +0.19% 
==========================================
Files 93 93 Lines 5438 5608 +170 Branches 699 737 +38 ==========================================
+ Hits 4987 5154 +167 - Misses 327 328 +1 - Partials 124 126 +2

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`91.90% <ø> (+0.19%)`	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T02:01:28Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.

what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T05:00:58Z

I feel like if we just add it to the checklist it's awkward.
what would awkward about adding it to the checklist?

Type hinting to me is not the same "level" as the other checklist items above, and it's also already in the Governing Doc, under the PRs "should": "Include proper type hinting".

Because it's not a "must", I don't know that adding it as a checklist item is a good idea? Plus, we already have the first item that you have read the Governing Doc and will adhere to it, though I'm not sure if that's too loose since the doc is very long.

What is your opinion?

henrydingliu · 2026-09-01T15:03:43Z

Because it's not a "must"

type hinting is a required check that's currently xfail. up to you if you want to hit it with this PR template revision

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T20:25:36Z

I think we leave it off for now.

I'm sure there will be a day that we require all implementations to be properly typed and include the docstrings/examples. When we are there we can add it then is my vote.

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:28:58Z

+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals
+- [ ] I am a human (not a bot), and this PR is not AI generated.


I recommend replacing "this PR" to "this PR description", since we do allow LLMs for code, but discourage them for the communications.

Take a look at the new language, is that better?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:30:20Z

+ [DOCS] for documentation
+ [TST] for unit testing
+ [CHORE] for chores and maintenance tasks
+ [BRK] for breaking changes, deprecations, and removals


I'm on the fence with having the whole list of tags in the template. It is possible to have an automatic check that fails unless the tag is present, what do you think?

How about we compromise? I think it's good to have a short list here just so you don't have to always look up what the actual tag is and what's available?

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:31:15Z

+<!-- Do not edit anything below until the ticket is open. Checklists below. -->
+
+## Submitter's Checklist
+- [ ] I have reviewed and am adhering to the standards outlined in the project Governing Doc.


Add a hyperlink to the Governing Doc.

Good idea, will do

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:34:12Z

+

-## Checklist
- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)


I'd recommend adding a bullet Submitter's Checklist that replaces this one. We now have a pre-commit hook that can one-shot all the workflows locally:
I passed all pre-commit checks prior to push (with a link to the list of workflows we deploy in the Governing Doc).

Do you think this is necessary? We already have the CI tests that run automatically, and there's also the last bullet on the reviewer's list "CI tests passed or failure are acceptable"

genedan · 2026-09-01T20:38:43Z

I think it's OK to have a checklist item for it, although I'm not super adamant about it. Eventually we will be able to enforce it automatically and won't have the checklist item anymore.

Right now the % coverage has been moving up despite not having the checkbox, and I personally don't nag people about it during reviews (unlike my comments on spacing and indentation). If you find that you are constantly reminding people in your reviews to put the hints in, you should have the checkbox.

kennethshsu · 2026-09-01T22:02:27Z

Maybe with typing, we can break up the submitter's list? So we have

Documentation is appropriate.
Tests are appropriate.
Typing is complete.

Or would this be too long? And also this is turning from a "should" to a "must".

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105

kennethshsu added 3 commits August 31, 2026 16:16

revised PR template in accordance with governing doc
2b35ec6

Spacing
acd3df7

Format
0378e5e

kennethshsu requested review from genedan, henrydingliu and jbogaardt as code owners August 31, 2026 23:23

genedan reviewed Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

kennethshsu added 5 commits September 1, 2026 14:54

Added url to governing doc
8c25da6

Shorten the PR subject prefix list
f4fdfc8

Words
5ff14c7

capitalization
cfb1c2c

words and typo
2015105



		## Checklist
		- [ ] I passed tests locally for both code (`uv run pytest`) and documentation changes (`uv run --directory docs jb build . --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest`)

Uh oh!

Conversation

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026• edited by cursor BotLoading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary of Changes

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Additional Context for Reviewers

Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented Aug 31, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pyright Type Completeness

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented Aug 31, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

henrydingliu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

henrydingliu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

genedan commented Sep 1, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026• edited by cursor BotLoading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary of Changes

Related GitHub Issue(s)

Additional Context for Reviewers

Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actionsBot commented Aug 31, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pyright Type Completeness

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented Aug 31, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

henrydingliu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

kennethshsu commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

henrydingliu commented Sep 1, 2026

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited by cursor Bot
Loading

github-actionsBot commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecovBot commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited
Loading

genedan commented Sep 1, 2026•
edited
Loading

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited by cursor Bot
Loading

github-actionsBot commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecovBot commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited
Loading

genedan commented Sep 1, 2026•
edited
Loading

kennethshsu commented Aug 31, 2026•
edited by cursor Bot
Loading