Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

chore: update pull_request_template #3033

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 22, 2024
Merged

Conversation

TBonnin
Copy link
Collaborator

@TBonnin TBonnin commented Nov 21, 2024

My take: having a checklist of things that rarely apply is pretty useless. I (and I am sure not the only one) just always ignore the observability and analytics points. I propose this change to focus on the things that matter: description of the changes, testing and ticket. All of them almost always applies.

Also changing to comments so the template instructions don't show once the PR is submitted

Checklist before requesting a review (skip if just adding/editing APIs & templates)

  • I added tests, otherwise the reason is: not applicable 🤔
  • I added observability, otherwise the reason is: not applicable 🙄
  • I added analytics, otherwise the reason is: not applicable 😝

@TBonnin TBonnin requested review from a team November 21, 2024 15:11
- [ ] I have tested those changes
- [ ] I have added tests (skip if just adding/editing providers)

<!-- Testing instructions (if applicable) -->
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@TBonnin TBonnin Nov 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

arguably we could get rid of this one but @nalanj raised a good point where we often make the assumption that the reviewers have all the context to tests the PR.

## Checklist before requesting a review (skip if just adding/editing APIs & templates)
- [ ] I added tests, otherwise the reason is:
- [ ] I added observability, otherwise the reason is:
- [ ] I added analytics, otherwise the reason is:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, usually I go simpler. Checkboxes are annoying and honestly, after a while, you stop caring.

# 🤓 Context

# 🧪 How to tests?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would go for that if it was a private repo but since it is public I would be slightly more verbose

Copy link
Contributor

@hassan254-prog hassan254-prog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I agree with Samuel, after a while you stop caring for the checkboxes.

@TBonnin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TBonnin commented Nov 21, 2024

nobody likes checkboxes apparently so let's get rid of them: 9a62043

@TBonnin TBonnin force-pushed the tbonnin/nov21/pr-template branch from 9a62043 to e239147 Compare November 21, 2024 16:54
@TBonnin TBonnin enabled auto-merge (squash) November 21, 2024 16:55
@TBonnin TBonnin force-pushed the tbonnin/nov21/pr-template branch from e239147 to cc88e8a Compare November 21, 2024 22:31
My take: having a checklist of things that rarely applies is pretty
useless. I (and I am sure not the only one) just ignore the
observability and analytics points. I propose this change to focus on
the things that matter: description of the change, testing and ticket
All of them almost always applies.

Also changing to comments so the template instructions don't show once
the PR is submitted
@TBonnin TBonnin force-pushed the tbonnin/nov21/pr-template branch from cc88e8a to b627882 Compare November 22, 2024 01:54
@TBonnin TBonnin merged commit 0a2b5f7 into master Nov 22, 2024
20 checks passed
@TBonnin TBonnin deleted the tbonnin/nov21/pr-template branch November 22, 2024 02:01
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants