Skip to content
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

Add a PR template #1007

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 13, 2022
Merged

Add a PR template #1007

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 13, 2022

Conversation

julien-deramond
Copy link
Member

@julien-deramond julien-deramond commented Dec 29, 2021

This PR proposes to add a PR template to avoid:

Moreover it will help the contributors to provide the needed information.

This is based on twbs/bootstrap#35079.

You can test it by creating a new pull request in https:/julien-deramond/github-repository-test/pulls (use the main-jd-fake-branch).

After the merge

@julien-deramond julien-deramond changed the title chore(github): add a PR template Add a PR template Dec 29, 2021

<!-- Describe your changes in detail -->

### Motivation & Context
Copy link
Member

@louismaximepiton louismaximepiton Dec 29, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd regroup this part with the Related Issues (something like Motivation, Context and Related Issues)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or move Related Issues up here or just before this paragraph ?


<!-- Please link any related issues here. -->

### [Live preview](https://deploy-preview-{your pr number}--boosted.netlify.app/)
Copy link
Member

@louismaximepiton louismaximepiton Dec 29, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd move this part to the top, maybe just after description

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
- in /forms/validation/?#supported-elements if it is a new Orange custom component that is a form control
- in /forms/overview/ if it is a new Orange custom component that is a form control
- [ ] Check (and fix) RTL version
- [ ] Run linters
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run ..., npm run ..., etc.)

- in /forms/overview/ if it is a new Orange custom component that is a form control
- [ ] Check (and fix) RTL version
- [ ] Run linters
- [ ] Run compilers
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run ..., npm run ..., etc.)

- [ ] Run linters
- [ ] Run compilers
- [ ] Tests added for JS-side
- [ ] Run tests
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run test)


<!-- /!\ Core Team only: Uncomment the following for a release DoD -->
<!--
- [ ] Run linters;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run ..., npm run ..., etc.)

<!-- /!\ Core Team only: Uncomment the following for a release DoD -->
<!--
- [ ] Run linters;
- [ ] Run compilers;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run ..., npm run ..., etc.)

<!--
- [ ] Run linters;
- [ ] Run compilers;
- [ ] Run tests;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe remind the commands to run by adding : (using npm run test)

- IE11 (v4 only)
- Latest Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Safari
- iOS Safari
- Chrome & Firefox on Android
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have here the same list as above (if made suggestions are accepted)


<!-- Describe your changes in detail -->

### Motivation & Context
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or move Related Issues up here or just before this paragraph ?

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 5, 2022

Deploy Preview for boosted ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 2f6cc13
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/boosted/deploys/63204252da64f700086d7b27
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1007--boosted.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

@julien-deramond
Copy link
Member Author

I modified a bit the file architecture to gather what's been discussed in Bootstrap and here (/cc @louismaximepiton @MewenLeHo @isabellechanclou ).
I haven't added the corresponding npm run commands within the template for now. It could be done in a second PR after having tried this first version.
What do you think all? Do we start with that?

@louismaximepiton
Copy link
Member

louismaximepiton commented Sep 5, 2022

An idea just popped up to my mind, should we add a checklist for reviewers? I mean something to be sure that we aren't missing something obvious as reviewer? It doesn't prevent to check some other things that were not noticed, and could be filled up by other reviewers.
Otherwise the actual version should do the work.

@julien-deramond
Copy link
Member Author

An idea just popped up to my mind, should we add a checklist for reviewers? I mean something to be sure that we aren't missing something obvious as reviewer? It doesn't prevent to check some other things that were not noticed, and could be filled up by other reviewers. Otherwise the actual version should do the work.

IMO the checklist for the reviewer is the same as the one for the person proposing the PR; you got to be your own reviewer when you propose your PR.

@MewenLeHo
Copy link
Contributor

An idea just popped up to my mind, should we add a checklist for reviewers? I mean something to be sure that we aren't missing something obvious as reviewer? It doesn't prevent to check some other things that were not noticed, and could be filled up by other reviewers. Otherwise the actual version should do the work.

Should we do it? Maybe.
Can we do it? I honestly don't know. Most PRs are really different and about various subject. Would it be possible to find a common set of points to check?

@julien-deramond
Copy link
Member Author

Should we do it? Maybe. Can we do it? I honestly don't know. Most PRs are really different and about various subject. Would it be possible to find a common set of points to check?

Most of the checks are common sense:

  • The PR corresponds to what's in the issue (if issue)
  • The PR doesn't break anything
  • Check all the possible non-regressions (not only the use case mentioned in the description)
  • Think about the users, migrations etc.
  • Write tests

IMO the common part is rather obvious and the rest is, as @MewenLeHo said, "really different and about various subject" and depending on the context.

@louismaximepiton
Copy link
Member

Let's merge it this way! As discussed with @julien-deramond, could come later but could be useful for external contributors or newcomers to have at least a base for their own review.

@julien-deramond julien-deramond merged commit 11752c0 into main Sep 13, 2022
@julien-deramond julien-deramond deleted the main-jd-add-pr-template branch September 13, 2022 08:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants