-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 954
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ | |||
## What changed? | |||
<!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> | |||
<!-- Describe what has changed in this 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.
Can we somehow do this without html comments? No one deletes them and they annoyingly end up in all commit messages
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.
This is interesting idea. There are 2 options (guess where I get them):
- Replace comments with something like:
<!-- Describe what has changed in this PR. --> | |
[Replace this with a short description of your change] |
- 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?
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.
Added GHA.
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Outdated
|
||
## 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. --> |
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.
backwards and forwards, but maybe we don't have to call it out
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Outdated
|
||
## 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? --> |
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.
lets make clear that this is checkboxes, not a questionary.
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.
You want me to list all possible options here? I guess there are too many of them, but I am not strictly against.
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Outdated
|
||
## 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. |
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.
Same here - optional.
If there are potential risks - worth shearing, if not - should be removed
What changed?
Removed useless sections. Improved others.
Why?
Team agreement.
How did you test it?