Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Auto label node PR's - #6
Conversation
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 6, 2016
I don't mind if it over-labels a bit. We can probably do a trial of sorts by just regexing against tag names with some sort of priority, falling back to |
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 6, 2016
the refactoring bits lgtm |
phillipj
commented
Apr 10, 2016
Pushed some improvements. Now it does some very basic analysis on the file paths changed and returns a list of labels. Obvious things still missing:
|
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 10, 2016
I think it is probably more reliable to just hardcode a bunch of regex's. I'm willing to figure out what those should be. We should also try to fallback to |
williamkapke
commented
Apr 14, 2016
I need the github client extracted out as you did here in For now I'll use a copy of that file but won't commit it. |
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 14, 2016
@phillipj How about we make this only check against regex's and only use This will also make sure the bot never uses labels that people willy-nilly add/remove. |
phillipj
commented
Apr 14, 2016
@Fishrock123 sure, we could start off with a limited set of labels. What about keeping the current |
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 14, 2016
@phillipj Also seems good to me, but I think it should be cleaned up a bit to be a bit more portable.. We probably need some to check Another example would be a purely benchmarks change. I don't think we should add that yet, just let it be easier to build on after, if possible. :) |
60e24d2 to
6fdd91fCompare| // | ||
| // Planned tests to be resolved later | ||
| // |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 14, 2016
@phillipj lgtm minus a nit, although I'm not sure we should deploy this yet. We'll want to have a go-ahead from collaborators with some example in a test repo I think. If you think we should go straight to deploy though, I'm willing to back that. |
phillipj
commented
Apr 15, 2016
@Fishrock123 PTAL This branch is currently deployed and have done some initial tests in https://github.com/TestOrgPleaseIgnore/node/pulls |
| user: options.owner, | ||
| repo: options.repo, | ||
| number: options.prId, | ||
| labels: labels |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Started out with two labels in this iteration: c++ and test.
phillipj
commented
Apr 15, 2016
@Fishrock123@williamkapke Thanks for reviewing! Just pushed an update which merges the resolved labels with the PR's existing labels, so that we don't accidentally remove any labels. If it looks good to you, merge at will. |
phillipj
commented
Apr 15, 2016
Forgot to mention I tested it with three PRs (9 - 11) in the test repo https://github.com/TestOrgPleaseIgnore/node/pulls |
Fishrock123
commented
Apr 15, 2016
Seems good to me, let's try it imo. |
Very much a work in progress ATM, just wanted to get this out there for public scrutiny and work on it the next couple of days.
Goals
/labels/#PR-NUMUPDATE In the discussion below, we've decided to only resolve
c++andtestlabels at first, then add more labels in later iterations of this.Refs #1