Skip to content

Improve PR description template #7706

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alexshtin
Copy link
Member

@alexshtin alexshtin commented May 2, 2025

What changed?

Removed useless sections. Improved others.

Why?

Team agreement.

How did you test it?

  • built
  • run locally and tested manually
  • covered by existing tests
  • added new unit test(s)
  • added new functional test(s)
  • validated in CI

@alexshtin alexshtin requested a review from a team as a code owner May 2, 2025 21:50
@alexshtin alexshtin requested a review from yiminc May 2, 2025 21:54
@alexshtin alexshtin changed the title Improve PR template Improve PR description template May 2, 2025
@alexshtin alexshtin requested a review from dnr May 2, 2025 22:24
@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@
## What changed?
<!-- Describe what has changed in this PR -->
<!-- Describe what has changed in this PR. -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we somehow do this without html comments? No one deletes them and they annoyingly end up in all commit messages

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is interesting idea. There are 2 options (guess where I get them):

  1. Replace comments with something like:
Suggested change
<!-- Describe what has changed in this PR. -->
[Replace this with a short description of your change]
  1. GHA which cleans comments out automatically. There is no such thing as "pre-merge" hook but we can run it on the first approval, for example. I actually like this approach and I think we should at least try it. What do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added GHA.


## Potential risks
<!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? -->
<!-- Any change is risky. Identify any potential risks involved in deploying this change to the production.
Pay special attention to potentially breaking backward compatibility, especially at the RPC and storage levels. -->
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

backwards and forwards, but maybe we don't have to call it out


## How did you test it?
<!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? -->
<!-- Tested locally? Added a unit test? Added a functional test? Checked in CI? -->
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lets make clear that this is checkboxes, not a questionary.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You want me to list all possible options here? I guess there are too many of them, but I am not strictly against.


## Potential risks
<!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? -->
<!-- Any change is risky. Identify any potential risks involved in deploying this change to the production.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here - optional.
If there are potential risks - worth shearing, if not - should be removed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants