github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-03-09 11:42:54 -05:00
Code Issues 250 Packages Projects Releases 53 Wiki Activity

[Maintenance] github actions - "Ready for review" labels #811

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-28 19:20:43 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 20 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:43 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @MatissJanis on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023).

We are currently using trafico to label PRs with "WIP" and "Ready for review" labels.

There are a few problems with our current solution that cannot be solved with trafico:

  1. draft PRs get the "ready for review" label (they should not get this label)
  2. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not)

The goal of this maintenance task is to solve the above two issues. It might require picking a different tool than trafico. Or alternatively: to fork trafico and implement the missing functionality.

Originally created by @MatissJanis on GitHub (Dec 12, 2023). We are currently using [trafico](https://github.com/orhan/trafico) to label PRs with "WIP" and "Ready for review" labels. There are a few problems with our current solution that cannot be solved with trafico: 1. draft PRs get the "ready for review" label (they should not get this label) 2. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not) The goal of this maintenance task is to solve the above two issues. It might require picking a different tool than trafico. Or alternatively: to fork trafico and implement the missing functionality.
GiteaMirror added the maintenance label 2026-02-28 19:20:43 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:44 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@subnut commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024):

  1. draft PRs get the "ready for review" label (they should not get this label)

Should they also get the default "WIP" label, or a new "Draft" level?
I prefer the former.

  1. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not)

Should they get the "WIP" label too? Or should they have a new label? (eg. ❌ Failing CI)
I prefer the latter.

@subnut commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024): > 1. draft PRs get the "ready for review" label (they should not get this label) Should they also get the default "WIP" label, or a new "Draft" level? I prefer the former. > 2. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not) Should they get the "WIP" label too? Or should they have a new label? (eg. :x: Failing CI) I prefer the latter.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:44 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024):

More granularity would definitely be better. But if that's not possible or hard to achieve, then re-using the existing labels is also fine.

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2024): More granularity would definitely be better. But if that's not possible or hard to achieve, then re-using the existing labels is also fine.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:44 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@carkom commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024):

Can we just create a workflow to add [WIP] to the begining of every new PR title? At that point trafico would pick it up and label it. Then the expectation is that the owner of the PR would remove the WIP when it's ready for review.

I like the idea of a new "Failing CI" label. I think trafico is working well, might be good to add the functionality to it. I'm saying that with no expertise on how difficult that would be. 🤷

@carkom commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024): Can we just create a workflow to add [WIP] to the begining of every new PR title? At that point trafico would pick it up and label it. Then the expectation is that the owner of the PR would remove the WIP when it's ready for review. I like the idea of a new "Failing CI" label. I think trafico is working well, might be good to add the functionality to it. I'm saying that with no expertise on how difficult that would be. 🤷
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:45 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024):

That would work too if you want to give it a go. It wouldn't solve the issue fully though.. but still worthwhile doing in the short-term.

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024): That would work too if you want to give it a go. It wouldn't solve the issue fully though.. but still worthwhile doing in the short-term.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:45 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

With the trafico bot currently down, I've been playing around with probot and it doesn't look hard to create a bespoke bot for actual.

Is this something what would be welcomed?

I've got one running currently that replicates the WIP functionality (and even adds the [WIP] prefix on for newly opened PRs removing the need for the github action). It's completely TS and unit-testable too which is a bonus

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): With the trafico bot currently down, I've been playing around with probot and it doesn't look hard to create a bespoke bot for actual. Is this something what would be welcomed? I've got one running currently that replicates the WIP functionality (and even adds the [WIP] prefix on for newly opened PRs removing the need for the github action). It's completely TS and unit-testable too which is a bonus
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:45 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

Cc @twk3 (see comment above)

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): Cc @twk3 (see comment above)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:45 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@twk3 commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

@matt-fidd do you think the logic you've written is something that could be moved to an action (using actions/github nodejs package rather than probot)? Actions are easier for others to customise and use without needing additional hosting.

I'm attempting the same thing with a fork of trafico (moving it to an action I mean), but was going to leave it rough (JS, no unit tests) with the anticipation that we would rewrite something eventually. Sounds like you've already got that part going! If it's something you're willing to publish as open source, we'd love to take a look.

@twk3 commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): @matt-fidd do you think the logic you've written is something that could be moved to an action (using `actions/github` nodejs package rather than probot)? Actions are easier for others to customise and use without needing additional hosting. I'm attempting the same thing with a fork of trafico (moving it to an action I mean), but was going to leave it rough (JS, no unit tests) with the anticipation that we would rewrite something eventually. Sounds like you've already got that part going! If it's something you're willing to publish as open source, we'd love to take a look.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:46 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

@twk3 It's definitely worth a look! I can't say that I've used actions before but I'd be willing to have a look at implementing if that's something you'd be looking for?

I've pushed the bot as-is up to https://github.com/matt-fidd/actual-bot/ for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure really as this is my first attempt at typescript). It's very rough at the moment but if the bot is something you'd be interested in then it could easily be expanded to replace trafico, add add the functionality that Matiss requested originally in this issue.

If you'd definitely like to go in the action direction instead then let me know and I can have a look!

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): @twk3 It's definitely worth a look! I can't say that I've used actions before but I'd be willing to have a look at implementing if that's something you'd be looking for? I've pushed the bot as-is up to https://github.com/matt-fidd/actual-bot/ for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure really as this is my first attempt at typescript). It's very rough at the moment but if the bot is something you'd be interested in then it could easily be expanded to replace trafico, add add the functionality that Matiss requested originally in this issue. If you'd definitely like to go in the action direction instead then let me know and I can have a look!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:46 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

You can make a workflow that triggers after the suite finishes (with help from ChatGPT):

on:
  check_suite:
    types: 
      - completed

jobs:
  check_failure:
    if: github.event.check_suite.conclusion == 'failure'
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: Print a message
        run: echo "A check suite has failed on this pull request."

And then I'm sure there is a way to add a label to a PR from a workflow. ChatGPT suggested a script, which would work, but then you would need to store an API token somewhere.

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): You can make a workflow that triggers after the suite finishes (with help from ChatGPT): ```yaml on: check_suite: types: - completed jobs: check_failure: if: github.event.check_suite.conclusion == 'failure' runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Print a message run: echo "A check suite has failed on this pull request." ``` And then I'm sure there is a way to add a label to a PR from a workflow. ChatGPT suggested a script, which would work, but then you would need to store an API token somewhere.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:46 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

I guess that is what GitHub recommends too: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-issues-and-pull-requests/adding-labels-to-issues

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): I guess that is what GitHub recommends too: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-issues-and-pull-requests/adding-labels-to-issues
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:46 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024):

I've had a go at some github workflows, I'm sure they're not perfect but they do at least work!
https://github.com/matt-fidd/bot-test/tree/master/.github/workflows

They're much slower to act then the bot and result in a status check appearing at the bottom of every pull request - not sure how to avoid this

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 17, 2024): I've had a go at some github workflows, I'm sure they're not perfect but they do at least work! https://github.com/matt-fidd/bot-test/tree/master/.github/workflows They're much slower to act then the bot and result in a status check appearing at the bottom of every pull request - not sure how to avoid this
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:46 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

@matt-fidd Could you open a PR with those workflows against this repo so we can move the discussion there?

@psybers commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): @matt-fidd Could you open a PR with those workflows against this repo so we can move the discussion there?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:47 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

@matt-fidd Could you open a PR with those workflows against this repo so we can move the discussion there?

I'll push this up to a WIP PR for you now and write the rest of the suite

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): > @matt-fidd Could you open a PR with those workflows against this repo so we can move the discussion there? I'll push this up to a WIP PR for you now and write the rest of the suite
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:47 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024):

Up for you #2900 @psybers

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jun 18, 2024): Up for you #2900 @psybers
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:48 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2024):

There's a thread going in #development on discord with me and twk3 but just thought I'd drop it here too. We came to the conclusion that github actions weren't the way forward because we'd lose the functionality of the approved and changes requested labels. @twk3 settled on a github bot as a serverless function through Netlify.

Finally had the time tonight to get it over the line, it now replicates the existing functionality with trafico, as well as extending to

  • handle drafts
  • add a failing CI status

as requested above

If you get a chance to have a look I'd welcome any feedback

Repo link
https://github.com/matt-fidd/actual-bot

Installation link (hosting on my server for now, will keep it online for anyone to test)
https://github.com/settings/installations/52299031

No test suite as yet, I'm struggling with the framework that probot comes with, if anyone has any pointers I'd appreciate it!

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2024): There's a thread going in `#development` on discord with me and twk3 but just thought I'd drop it here too. We came to the conclusion that github actions weren't the way forward because we'd lose the functionality of the `approved` and `changes requested` labels. @twk3 settled on a github bot as a serverless function through Netlify. Finally had the time tonight to get it over the line, it now replicates the existing functionality with trafico, as well as extending to - handle drafts - add a failing CI status as requested above If you get a chance to have a look I'd welcome any feedback Repo link https://github.com/matt-fidd/actual-bot Installation link (hosting on my server for now, will keep it online for anyone to test) https://github.com/settings/installations/52299031 No test suite as yet, I'm struggling with the framework that probot comes with, if anyone has any pointers I'd appreciate it!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:48 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 7, 2024):

Can this be closed?

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 7, 2024): Can this be closed?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:48 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2024):

  1. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not)

This is not yet done.

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2024): > 2. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not) This is not yet done.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:49 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2024):

  1. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not)

This is not yet done.

The label for Failing CI is built into the new bot, but it was disabled at the request of @twk3. It works in testing but I believe tw3k saw some weirdness that I couldn't reproduce.

Maybe we could enable it on actual-server first to let me iron out any possible kinks before rolling to actual?

@matt-fidd commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2024): > > 2. PRs with failing CI/CD checks also get "ready for review" label (ideally they should not) > > > > This is not yet done. The label for Failing CI is built into the new bot, but it was disabled at the request of @twk3. It works in testing but I believe tw3k saw some weirdness that I couldn't reproduce. Maybe we could enable it on actual-server first to let me iron out any possible kinks before rolling to actual?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:49 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@twk3 commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024):

@matt-fidd the path where it adds ready for review doesn't take into account the other factors like review status before it marks a PR as ready for review. And the presence of the failingCI label I don't think prevents the other events from adding ready for review.

@twk3 commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024): @matt-fidd the path where it adds ready for review doesn't take into account the other factors like review status before it marks a PR as ready for review. And the presence of the failingCI label I don't think prevents the other events from adding ready for review.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 19:20:49 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2024):

I think we can close this issue as complete. Thoughts?

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2024): I think we can close this issue as complete. Thoughts?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
AI generated
API
bank sync
budgeting
bug
can’t replicate
dependencies
docker
documentation
electron
experimental feature
feature
feedback
goal templates
good first issue
help wanted
importers
maintenance
needs info
needs testing
needs triage
needs votes
openid
payees
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 regression
reports
responsive
rules
schedules
server
✨ merged
split transactions
tech debt
theme
transaction import
transaction reconciliation
transactions
translations
upstream
user interface
✅ approved
wontfix
No Label maintenance
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/actual#811
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?