quasarframework / rfcs

RFCs for Quasar Framework
17 stars 2 forks source link

Triaging Enhancements and Automation #10

Open yusufkandemir opened 3 years ago

yusufkandemir commented 3 years ago

RFC (Request for Comments) Template

Type of RFC

Other

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Proposed RFC

Request Management Flow (bugs, feature requests, etc.)

Issue Template Changes

See the test repo: https://github.com/yusufkandemir/github-issue-form-test

Issue Forms

GitHub has a new feature called Issue Forms, which allow creating forms with validation and stuff for creating an issue, which is very useful since a lot of users don't fill in the template as we want to be. I converted our issue template to a form and made some extra changes to improve the quality and prepare for some future plans to work with bots, like automatically labeling or assigning people, looking at the selected options, etc.

You can check the test repo to see how created issues look like, and try to create new issues to experience how it feels like to create new issues with the form

Issue Template Chooser

GitHub has a thing called Issue Template Chooser, it allows choosing different templates between bug reports, feature requests, etc. when creating an issue. We are currently using it on our repo for issue and feature requests for Qv1 and Qv2 respectively. It is configurable, so I have gone ahead and disabled the creation of blank issues, and added extra entries explaining and redirecting to our other channels like GitHub Discussions and Quasar Discord Server.

Please ignore the plain Bug report entry, it's for testing purposes

Updates to Feature Request Flow

We will get rid of the Feature Request type when creating new issues, and we will redirect users to use the Ideas/Proposals section in Discussions instead. After a post gets enough interaction, has enough information to get implemented, and gets approved by our staff, we will convert the discussion to an issue. Then we or someone else can create a PR referencing that issue.

Bots and Automation

I made some thinking and research, inspected a lot of bots, and selected these bots among them to be useful for Quasar:

rstoenescu commented 3 years ago

@yusufkandemir

https://github.com/yusufkandemir/github-issue-form-test looks awesome!!! Please do PR using Form Issues to our main repo.

Great stuff!!

Evertvdw commented 3 years ago

@yusufkandemir Looks great! Maybe an addition, would it be possible to let users select the relevant components when creating an issue and give that issue a label? That way we could quickly categorize issues by component for testing purposes, see where we need to focus on with unit testing and such.

IlCallo commented 2 years ago

would it be possible to let users select the relevant components when creating an issue and give that issue a label

@Evertvdw unluckily, there's a max number of labels for each repo, and we already hit it, so this isn't feasible

yusufkandemir commented 2 years ago

@IlCallo that only applies for Discussions. For Issues/PRs, I don't think there is a limit. I saw some repositories with almost 400 labels before, e.g. https://github.com/prisma/prisma/labels.

However, I found it will be bad for UX and management because of the following reasons:

So, if we think of having a label for each component, we can create them and manually label issues when we see fit. But, especially for short-lived issues, we may easily forget to label them, especially since the issue title usually has the component name. But, that's my opinion. Please let me know if you think creating a new form field now is still worth it despite the disadvantages above. If not, we can manually label the issues, wait until GitHub Issue Forms brings those features, or scrap the idea.

rstoenescu commented 2 years ago

Can this be closed?

IlCallo commented 2 years ago

AFAIK the whole automations/bots section haven't been implemented yet, we just added issue forms and a not much else If you green-light that section (or some points of that section) as you did for issue forms, we can work on adding those too and lift up some issues management hassle

rstoenescu commented 2 years ago

Green light. Yes!