-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
[IMP] ocabot merge : check line in migration issue #192
[IMP] ocabot merge : check line in migration issue #192
Conversation
b23fa62
to
616a9a1
Compare
67ac186
to
dd1b7ed
Compare
4f0668c
to
898466f
Compare
Hi. I think it could be merged safely. |
@sbidoul this one is very interesting to be merged and deployed for synchronizing the issue information with the reality. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I had review comments that I forgot to submit, sorry about that.
migration_issue = _find_issue(gh_repo, milestone, target_branch) | ||
if migration_issue: | ||
new_body = _check_line_issue(gh_pr.number, migration_issue.body) | ||
migration_issue.edit(body=new_body) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, this whole block could become a function in migration_issue_bot.py
, such as mark_migration_done_in_migration_issue(gh_repo, gh_pr)
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
I don't know about the policy for the commits in the repository, but only one commit should be enough: you can squash what I suggested in your changes.
This PR has the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @sbidoul. I applied the changes you proposed. Thanks for your review !
Regarding the refactor you propose, I don't have a clear point of view, and no time in the next week to work on the bot.
We can merge it as it, and make some refactor work in a next sprint, or let the PR unmerged if you think it's a blocking point.
I don't know about the policy for the commits in the repository, but only one commit should be enough: you can squash what I suggested in your changes.
@SirTakobi : I don't know about policy, but in that case, the first commit is mine, and the second one is your. If I squash, we will lose that information.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
a7dce55
to
f5f22fa
Compare
/ocabot rebase |
Congratulations, PR rebased to master. |
f5f22fa
to
d2171d4
Compare
3018c45
to
bfeb11d
Compare
Co-authored-by: Simone Rubino <sir@takobi.online> [IMP] Do not create milestone branch when merging PR Co-authored-by: Stéphane Bidoul <stephane.bidoul@acsone.eu> [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
431fa36
to
654a78d
Compare
Bravo! Are you going to deploy this for doing some checks on real scenarios? |
@pedrobaeza it is now deployed. |
Thanks. I'll check and tell you back if anything wrong. |
It seems not working:
|
Rational
When maintainers are merging migration PR, they have to manually go to the according migration issue, and check the according line.
This operation is sometimes forgotten, and could be automated.
This PR introduces that feature.
Fix : #189
Discussion reference : OCA/OpenUpgrade#3288 (comment)
CC : @sbidoul, @pedrobaeza
Tested with ngrox : See edited migration issue by the bot here : grap-org-test-bot/github-ocabot-test#27 (1 July 2022 17h46)