chore: update pr templates and issues #164
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@MFarabi619 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 21 minutes and 8 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request involves the removal of several issue and pull request templates from the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-cuhacking ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for website-cuhacking ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
.github/pull_request_template.md (5)
1-5: Excellent checklist, but consider using consistent list item style.The requirements checklist is comprehensive and covers crucial aspects of PR submission. However, to improve consistency and adhere to common Markdown practices:
Replace asterisks with dashes for list items. Here's the suggested change:
- **Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements** -* [ ] The commit message follows our guidelines -* [ ] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features) -* [ ] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features) +- [ ] The commit message follows our guidelines +- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features) +- [ ] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)This change will resolve the Markdownlint warnings and improve consistency throughout the template.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
3-3: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
4-4: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
5-5: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
7-7: Clear prompt for PR type, but maintain consistent list style.The prompt effectively asks for the kind of change the PR introduces, providing helpful examples. To maintain consistency with the previous section:
Replace the asterisk with a dash. Here's the suggested change:
-* **What kind of change does this PR introduce?** (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...) +- **What kind of change does this PR introduce?** (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)This change will resolve the Markdownlint warning and improve consistency throughout the template.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
7-7: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
9-9: Effective prompt for current behavior, but ensure consistent list style.The prompt clearly asks for the current behavior and helpfully suggests linking to an open issue. To maintain consistency with the previous sections:
Replace the asterisk with a dash. Here's the suggested change:
-* **What is the current behavior?** (You can also link to an open issue here) +- **What is the current behavior?** (You can also link to an open issue here)This change will resolve the Markdownlint warning and improve consistency throughout the template.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
9-9: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
11-11: Clear prompt for new behavior, but maintain consistent list style.The prompt effectively asks for the new behavior in case of a feature change. To maintain consistency with the previous sections:
Replace the asterisk with a dash. Here's the suggested change:
-* **What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?** +- **What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**This change will resolve the Markdownlint warning and improve consistency throughout the template.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
11-11: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
15-15: Useful prompt for additional information, but ensure consistent list style.The prompt allows contributors to provide any additional context or information relevant to the PR. To maintain consistency with the majority of the template:
Replace the asterisk with a dash. Here's the suggested change:
-* **Other information**: +- **Other information**:This change will resolve the Markdownlint warning and improve consistency throughout the template.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
15-15: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yaml (3)
3-3: LGTM: Well-structured title format. Consider adding an example.The title format 'feat(scope-of-issue): description' follows a clear structure that will help in categorizing and understanding feature requests at a glance.
Consider adding an example to help users who might not be familiar with this format. For instance:
title: 'feat(scope-of-issue): description' description: 'Example: feat(user-auth): add social media login options'
11-23: LGTM: Well-structured dropdown for platform selection.The dropdown for platforms is well-implemented:
- Allows multiple selections
- Includes relevant options (all, Website, Docs, Portal)
- Set as required, ensuring this information is always provided
Consider adding a brief description to clarify what "all" means in the context of platforms. For example:
description: Select the platform(s) this feature request applies to. Choose "all" if it's a general feature affecting all platforms.
24-30: LGTM: Clear textarea for feature description.The textarea for the feature description is appropriately implemented:
- Clear label and description
- Set as required, ensuring users provide necessary information
Consider adding a placeholder text to guide users on what to include in their description. For example:
placeholder: | Describe the feature you'd like to see: - What problem does it solve? - How do you envision it working? - Are there any alternatives you've considered?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md (0 hunks)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md (0 hunks)
- .github/pull_request_template.md (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (17)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
.github/pull_request_template.md
3-3: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
4-4: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
5-5: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
7-7: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
9-9: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
11-11: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
15-15: Expected: dash; Actual: asterisk
Unordered list style(MD004, ul-style)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/pull_request_template.md (1)
13-13: Excellent breaking change prompt with correct list style.This prompt effectively asks about breaking changes and provides context for what constitutes a breaking change. The use of a dash for the list item is correct and consistent with Markdown best practices.
Great job on maintaining the correct list style for this item!
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yaml (3)
1-2: LGTM: Clear and concise template name and description.The name "Feature" and description "Request a new feature" are clear, concise, and accurately describe the purpose of this issue template.
5-10: LGTM: Helpful markdown section to guide users.The markdown section effectively prompts users to search for similar issues and emphasizes the importance of detailed descriptions. This is a good practice to reduce duplicate issues and encourage high-quality submissions.
1-30: Great job on implementing a clear and structured feature request template!This new feature request template is well-organized and covers the essential aspects needed for submitting a feature request. It encourages users to provide necessary information and helps maintain consistency in issue submissions.
The template includes:
- A clear name and description
- A structured title format
- A helpful markdown section to guide users
- A comprehensive dropdown for platform selection
- A required textarea for feature description
The minor suggestions provided in the review comments aim to further enhance user guidance and clarity. Overall, this template will significantly improve the quality and consistency of feature requests in the repository.
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
7 times, most recently
from
ccdc936
to
1c41293
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The issue templates are all pretty similar, do you think it's a good idea to combine some similar ones?
Also don't forget to ask, "What is the solution?" for something like an feature. For an ADR we want a bit more, maybe something like "What is the solution", "What are the pros and cons", "Other alternatives considered". We're looking for a bit more for that one.
ok, ill change to be more specific for types. |
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
80cd841
to
8e20baf
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 23
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml (1)
1-2: Consider enhancing the template description.The current description is quite brief. Consider expanding it to help users understand when to use this template versus other issue types (e.g., features, bugs).
name: Chore -description: Create a chore issue +description: Create a chore issue for maintenance tasks, dependency updates, or other housekeeping activities that don't directly affect functionality.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.yml (1)
1-3: Consider adding examples for the title format.The title format follows conventional commit style, which is great for consistency. However, it might be helpful to provide examples to guide new contributors.
name: Docs description: Create a documentation issue -title: 'docs(scope-of-issue): description' +title: 'docs(scope-of-issue): description' +labels: ['documentation'] +body: + - type: markdown + attributes: + value: | + Examples of good titles: + - docs(readme): add deployment instructions + - docs(api): update authentication flow diagram + - docs(contributing): clarify PR review process.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.yml (2)
1-2: Enhance template description for clarity.The current description "Create tests" is too vague. Consider providing more context about the template's purpose.
name: Test -description: Create tests +description: Request the creation of new tests or improvements to existing test coverage
3-3: Add example titles to guide users.The conventional commit style is good, but users might benefit from examples.
title: 'test(scope-of-issue): description' +labels: ['testing'] +body: + - type: markdown + attributes: + value: | + Examples: + - test(auth): add unit tests for login flow + - test(api): improve integration test coverage for user endpoints.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor.yml (2)
1-3: Enhance template metadata for better clarity.The description could be more informative to help users understand when to use this template.
Consider this improvement:
name: Refactor -description: Make a refactor issue +description: Propose changes to improve code structure without changing its external behavior title: 'refactor(scope-of-issue): description'Also consider adding a comment with an example title:
name: Refactor description: Propose changes to improve code structure without changing its external behavior title: 'refactor(scope-of-issue): description' +# Example title: refactor(auth): migrate user authentication to JWT
7-10: Enhance the markdown prompt for refactoring context.The current prompt is generic and could be more specific to refactoring issues.
Consider this improvement:
value: |- - Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? - - Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + Before submitting a refactoring proposal: + - Search for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues) + - Ensure the changes don't introduce breaking changes + - Consider the impact on existing tests and documentation + + Insufficiently described issues will be closed. Please provide detailed information about the current code structure and your proposed improvements..github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml (1)
7-12: Enhance the introduction with more specific guidance.Consider adding:
- Link to the contribution guidelines
- Examples of what constitutes a sufficient description
- Reference to the project's roadmap or vision
value: |- Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + Please review our [contribution guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md) before submitting. + Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + + A good feature request should: + - Align with our [project vision](../README.md) + - Include clear use cases + - Consider impact on existing features.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adr.yml (2)
1-3: Enhance template description for better guidance.The current description "Record a design decision" is quite brief. Consider expanding it to better guide users on when to use this template.
name: ADR -description: Record a design decision +description: Document an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) to capture important design decisions, their context, and consequences title: '[ADR]: description'
5-10: Add more specific guidance in the search prompt.Consider adding links to ADR documentation and examples to help users understand the expected format and level of detail.
value: |- Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + + Before proceeding: + - Review our [ADR documentation](link-to-docs) for guidelines + - Check existing ADRs for similar decisions + - Consider if this decision has significant architectural impact Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adr.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md (0 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/pull_request_template.md (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (9)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/pull_request_template.md
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor.yml (1)
1-30: Verify consistency with other issue templates.Since this is part of a larger template restructuring effort, ensure that:
- The format and structure align with other new templates being added
- The platform options are consistent across all templates
✅ Verification successful
Template structure and platform options are consistent across all templates
The verification shows:
- Platform options are identical across all templates with the same options: "all", "Website", "Docs", "Portal"
- Required field validations are consistently applied to both platform selection and description fields
- The format aligns with other templates in the repository
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for consistency across all issue templates echo "Checking platform options across templates..." fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ -x cat {} \; | grep -A 5 "options:" echo "Checking required fields across templates..." fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ -x cat {} \; | grep "required: true" -B 2Length of output: 2143
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
8f7c1e1
to
5023901
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.yml (1)
1-3: Enhance template description for clarity.The template's description could be more informative to help users understand when to use this template.
name: Docs -description: Create a documentation issue +description: Report missing, unclear, or outdated documentation that needs attention title: 'docs(scope-of-issue): description'.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adr.yml (1)
1-3: Enhance template description to be more informative.The current description "Record a design decision" could be more helpful to users who might not be familiar with ADRs.
name: ADR -description: Record a design decision +description: Document an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) to capture important design choices, their context, and implications title: '[ADR]: description'
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adr.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.yml (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/refactor.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.yml
🔇 Additional comments (5)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.yml (2)
5-10: Previous review comment is still applicable.The suggestion to enhance the guidance section with more specific tips remains valid.
11-19: Previous review comment is still applicable.The suggestion to enhance the textarea configuration with minimum length and detailed placeholder remains valid.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adr.yml (3)
11-23: Platform selection needs refinement.The existing review comment about improving platform options is still valid.
24-37: Field descriptions need enhancement.The existing review comment about improving field descriptions is still valid.
38-48: Consequences section needs better structure.The existing review comment about structuring the consequences section is still valid.
Pull request was closed
JeremyFriesenGitHub
added
help wanted
✅ Deploy Preview for website-cuhacking ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
dee5a6f
to
9eb2b52
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (21)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/06_other.yml (2)
1-3: Enhance template description for clarity.The current description is quite broad. Consider providing:
- Examples of what constitutes "other" issues
- Reference to alternative templates that should be used first
name: Other -description: Create an issue that doesn't fit into any other category +description: Create an issue that doesn't fit into bug reports, feature requests, or other existing categories. Examples include process improvements, team coordination, or infrastructure changes. title: 'type(scope-of-issue): description'
5-11: Restructure search section for better clarity.The warning about insufficient descriptions should be moved to a more prominent position, and the hardcoded URL should be made relative.
- type: checkboxes id: search attributes: - label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Prerequisites + description: Please complete these steps before submitting your issue options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched for similar [issues](/issues) and found no duplicates + - label: I understand that insufficient information may result in the issue being closed.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/05_feature_request.yml (5)
1-5: Enhance template metadata clarityThe template metadata could be more descriptive to guide users effectively:
- The description should provide more context about what constitutes a valid feature request
- The title format should specify valid scopes (e.g., 'website', 'portal', 'docs')
name: Feature Request -description: Request a new feature +description: Request a new feature for the cuHacking platform. Please ensure your request is specific and provides clear value to users. -title: 'feat(scope-of-issue): description' +title: 'feat(website|portal|docs): description' labels: - enhancement
7-13: Improve search verification sectionThe current implementation has a few issues:
- The description about insufficient descriptions is misplaced under the search checkbox
- The checkbox label could be more actionable
- type: checkboxes id: search attributes: - label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Pre-submission Checklist + description: Before submitting a new feature request, please verify the following options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched for similar feature requests in both open and closed issues + - label: I have read the contribution guidelines
27-33: Enhance problem statement guidanceThe problem statement section could benefit from more detailed guidance to ensure quality submissions.
attributes: label: Problem Statement - description: A brief description of the what the issue of the feature request is + description: | + Describe the problem this feature would solve. Include: + - Who would benefit from this feature? + - What is the current workaround (if any)? + - How often does this problem occur? validations: required: true
34-47: Improve solution and alternatives sectionsBoth sections need more detailed guidance to ensure comprehensive responses.
attributes: label: Solution - description: A brief description of the solution taken + description: | + Describe your proposed solution: + - How would it work from a user's perspective? + - What technical changes might be required? + - Are there any potential drawbacks? validations: required: true - type: textarea id: alternatives attributes: label: Alternatives - description: A brief description of any alternatives considered + description: | + What alternative solutions have you considered? + - Why were they rejected? + - What are their pros and cons compared to your proposed solution?
48-52: Enhance additional context section guidanceThe additional context section could be more helpful with specific examples and formatting guidance.
attributes: label: Additional Context - description: Any additional context or information (screenshots can be placed here) + description: | + Add any other context about the feature request here: + - Mockups or wireframes (attach images in PNG/JPEG format) + - Links to similar features in other applications + - Timeline considerations or dependencies + - Impact on existing features.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_adr.yml (3)
1-4: Enhance template description for better guidance.The current description "Record a design decision" is quite brief. Consider expanding it to better guide users on when to use this template.
name: Architecture Decision Record -description: Record a design decision +description: Document significant architectural decisions, their context, consequences, and alternatives considered. Use this template when making important technical choices that impact the system's design. title: '[ADR]: description'
5-11: Add additional pre-submission validation checkboxes.Consider adding more checkboxes to ensure quality submissions and proper documentation.
options: - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: Have you reviewed existing architecture documentation? + - label: Is this decision significant enough to warrant an ADR? + - label: Have you discussed this decision with the team?
1-68: Consider adding template documentation and examples.While the template provides a good structure for ADRs, consider adding:
- A link to ADR documentation or guidelines in the template description
- A reference to example ADRs that demonstrate proper usage
- Integration with existing architectural documentation
This will help maintain consistency and quality across architectural decisions.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml (4)
7-14: Improve search verification section labelsThe current label "Search checkbox" is not very descriptive or professional.
- label: Search checkbox + label: Pre-submission Checklist description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible
14-21: Consider adding minimum length validation for descriptionTo ensure meaningful bug descriptions, consider adding a minimum length validation.
validations: required: true + minimum_length: 20
32-47: Add markdown support notice in placeholdersConsider adding a note about markdown support for better formatting.
- placeholder: include screenshots if needed + placeholder: "Include screenshots if needed. Markdown formatting is supported (e.g., **bold**, _italic_, `code`)"
61-71: Enhance environment checkboxes organizationConsider grouping browsers and devices separately and adding version information fields.
label: Reproducibility - description: Does this issue occur... + description: Please check all environments where this issue occurs options: + - label: "Browsers:" - label: in Safari? - label: in Firefox? - label: in Chrome? + - label: "Devices:" - label: for mobile devices? - label: for tablet devices? - label: for desktop devices? + - type: input + id: versions + attributes: + label: Browser/OS versions + description: Please specify versions for the affected browsers and operating systems.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml (4)
1-5: Fix typo and enhance template description
- There's a typo in the title format: "descripton" should be "description"
- Consider making the description more specific about what constitutes a website bug
-title: '[BUG]: descripton-of-issue' +title: '[BUG]: description-of-issue' -description: A bug affecting cuHacking's website +description: Report issues related to website functionality, UI/UX problems, or visual defects on cuHacking's website
7-14: Improve the search checkbox descriptionThe current description focuses on the negative outcome (issue closure) rather than guiding users toward constructive behavior.
- description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + description: Before submitting, please search existing issues to avoid duplicates and help us maintain an organized issue tracker
22-23: Use a more descriptive ID for steps to reproduceThe ID "str" is not descriptive and could be confusing for template maintenance.
- id: str + id: steps_to_reproduce
60-71: Enhance browser compatibility checklistConsider the following improvements:
- Add Microsoft Edge to the browser list
- Add a text field for browser versions
options: - label: in Safari? - label: in Firefox? - label: in Chrome? + - label: in Microsoft Edge? - label: for mobile devices? - label: for tablet devices? - label: for desktop devices? + - type: textarea + id: browser_versions + attributes: + label: Browser versions + description: If applicable, please specify the versions of affected browsers + placeholder: e.g., Chrome 120.0.6099.109, Firefox 121.0.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml (3)
7-13: Improve search checkbox clarityThe current label and description could be more focused on duplicate prevention.
- label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Duplicate Search + description: Before submitting, please search for existing issues to avoid duplicates
32-47: Add guidance for screenshot submissionsConsider adding more specific guidance about screenshot submissions.
- placeholder: include screenshots if needed + placeholder: If including screenshots, paste them directly or upload as PNG/JPEG. Ensure no sensitive information is visible.
60-71: Consider adding more browser optionsThe browser compatibility checklist could be more comprehensive.
options: - label: in Safari? - label: in Firefox? - label: in Chrome? + - label: in Edge? + - label: in Opera? - label: for mobile devices? - label: for tablet devices? - label: for desktop devices?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (25)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_adr.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/05_feature_request.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/06_other.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/pull_request_template.md(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (17)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
- .github/pull_request_template.md
🔇 Additional comments (8)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/06_other.yml (1)
1-31: Verify template configuration and placement.
Let's ensure this template is properly configured within the repository's issue template structure.
✅ Verification successful
The previous output showed that:
- The config.yml exists and is properly configured
- There are multiple templates organized numerically
- The YAML syntax validation failed due to missing tool
Let's examine the content of other templates to ensure consistency in structure and required fields before making a final determination.
Template configuration is properly structured and follows GitHub's schema
The issue template setup is well-organized with:
- Proper config.yml enabling blank issues and contact links
- Consistent naming convention (01-06 prefixes)
- Valid YAML structure across all templates
- Appropriate required fields and validations
- Consistent platform options across templates
- Common search checkbox across all templates
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify issue template configuration and placement
# Test 1: Check for config.yml which controls template visibility and organization
echo "Checking for template configuration..."
if [ -f ".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml" ]; then
cat ".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml"
fi
# Test 2: List all issue templates to ensure proper organization
echo -e "\nListing all issue templates..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/
# Test 3: Validate YAML syntax of all templates
echo -e "\nValidating YAML syntax..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ -x yamllint {}
Length of output: 1134
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of other templates to ensure consistency
# Check content of all issue templates
for template in $(fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exclude config.yml); do
echo "=== Content of $template ==="
cat "$template"
echo -e "\n"
done
Length of output: 12272
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml (2)
21-32: LGTM! Well-structured reproduction steps template
The numbered steps template provides good guidance for users.
72-76: LGTM! Good flexibility for additional information
The miscellaneous section provides a good catch-all for extra context.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml (2)
48-59: LGTM! Well-structured reproduction frequency dropdown
The dropdown provides clear options and sensible defaults for categorizing issue reproducibility.
72-76: LGTM! Well-structured miscellaneous information field
The field provides clear guidance on what additional information might be helpful while maintaining flexibility.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml (3)
14-31: LGTM!
The description and steps to reproduce sections are well structured with appropriate validations and helpful templates.
48-59: LGTM!
The dropdown implementation is well-structured with appropriate options and default value.
72-76: LGTM!
The miscellaneous information section is well structured with clear guidance on what information to include.
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a59f9eb
to
3963db0
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d6ba5ee
to
f4ad104
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml (3)
1-5: Enhance template metadata for documentation-specific issuesConsider making the template more documentation-specific:
name: Docs bug -description: A bug affecting cuHacking's docs site +description: Report issues with documentation accuracy, clarity, or completeness on cuHacking's docs site -title: '[BUG]: description-of-issue' +title: '[DOCS]: description-of-issue' labels: - bug + - documentation
7-13: Improve the search verification sectionThe current search verification could be more comprehensive and have a more constructive tone.
- type: checkboxes id: search attributes: - label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Before submitting + description: Please verify you've completed these steps before submitting options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues) + - label: I have reviewed the existing documentation thoroughly + - label: I have checked that this is indeed a documentation issue and not a feature request
72-76: Refine the miscellaneous information field for documentation contextThe miscellaneous information field contains references to QA steps and configuration, which aren't relevant for documentation issues.
- type: textarea id: misc attributes: label: Miscellaneous information - description: Any additional information, related issues, extra QA steps, configuration or data that might be necessary to reproduce the issue + description: Any additional context, related documentation pages, or examples that could help us understand and address the documentation issue.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml (4)
1-5: Consider enhancing issue categorization.While the basic metadata is good, consider these improvements:
- Add additional labels like 'website' to help with filtering and categorization
- Consider making the title format more specific, e.g., '[BUG][WEB]: description-of-issue'
name: Website bug description: A bug affecting cuHacking's website -title: '[BUG]: description-of-issue' +title: '[BUG][WEB]: description-of-issue' labels: - bug + - website
7-14: Enhance the search checkbox section.The current search checkbox description focuses on issue quality rather than the importance of searching for duplicates. Consider rewording to emphasize both aspects.
attributes: label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + description: Before submitting, please search for similar issues to avoid duplicates. Note that insufficiently described issues will be closed. options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched existing issues and confirmed this is not a duplicate
22-31: Enhance the reproduction steps section.Consider providing more structure in the steps to reproduce template to help users provide better information.
label: Steps to reproduce description: A series of steps to reproduce the issue value: |- - 1. - 2. - 3. + 1. Navigate to: [URL] + 2. Action: [What you did] + 3. Additional steps: [Any other actions] + + Environment: + - Browser version: + - OS version:
60-71: Expand browser compatibility checklist.The current browser compatibility checklist could be more comprehensive and specific.
description: Does this issue occur... options: - - label: in Safari? - - label: in Firefox? - - label: in Chrome? + - label: in Safari (specify version)? + - label: in Firefox (specify version)? + - label: in Chrome (specify version)? + - label: in Edge (specify version)? - label: for mobile devices? - label: for tablet devices? - label: for desktop devices? + - label: in private/incognito mode?.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml (4)
7-13: Enhance pre-submission checklistConsider adding more pre-submission checks to ensure quality submissions:
options: - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: Have you cleared your browser cache and confirmed the issue persists? + - label: Have you checked if this is a known issue in the documentation? + - label: Are you using the latest version of the portal?
14-20: Add a template structure for the descriptionConsider providing a template structure to help users write more detailed descriptions:
description: A brief description of the issue + placeholder: | + Context: [What were you trying to do?] + Problem: [What went wrong?] + Impact: [How does this affect your use of the portal?]
21-31: Enhance reproduction steps templateConsider adding more context to help users provide better reproduction steps:
value: |- + Prerequisites (if any): + - Browser version: + - Operating system: + + Steps: 1. 2. 3. + + Additional notes:
60-71: Update browser compatibility checklistConsider adding more modern browsers to the compatibility checklist:
options: - label: in Safari? - label: in Firefox? - label: in Chrome? + - label: in Microsoft Edge? + - label: in Opera? + - label: in Brave? - label: for mobile devices? - label: for tablet devices? - label: for desktop devices?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (25)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_adr.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/05_feature_request.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/06_other.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/pull_request_template.md(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (17)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_adr.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/05_feature_request.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/06_other.yml
- .github/pull_request_template.md
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_web.yml (1)
1-76: Overall template structure looks good!
The template provides a solid foundation for bug reporting with appropriate required fields and validations. The suggested improvements above would enhance its effectiveness, but the current structure is already well-organized and functional.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_portal.yml (1)
1-5: Fix typo in title format
The title format still contains the typo identified in the previous review.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml
Outdated
| - type: checkboxes | ||
| id: reproducibility | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Reproducibility | ||
| description: Does this issue occur... | ||
| options: | ||
| - label: in Safari? | ||
| - label: in Firefox? | ||
| - label: in Chrome? | ||
| - label: for mobile devices? | ||
| - label: for tablet devices? | ||
| - label: for desktop devices? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replace environment checkboxes with documentation-specific options
The current environment checkboxes are more suited for functional bugs rather than documentation issues.
- type: checkboxes
- id: reproducibility
+ id: affected_areas
attributes:
- label: Reproducibility
- description: Does this issue occur...
+ label: Affected documentation areas
+ description: Which areas of documentation are affected?
options:
- - label: in Safari?
- - label: in Firefox?
- - label: in Chrome?
- - label: for mobile devices?
- - label: for tablet devices?
- - label: for desktop devices?
+ - label: Getting Started guide
+ - label: API documentation
+ - label: Tutorials
+ - label: Examples
+ - label: Configuration guide
+ - label: Troubleshooting guide📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: checkboxes | |
| id: reproducibility | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Reproducibility | |
| description: Does this issue occur... | |
| options: | |
| - label: in Safari? | |
| - label: in Firefox? | |
| - label: in Chrome? | |
| - label: for mobile devices? | |
| - label: for tablet devices? | |
| - label: for desktop devices? | |
| - type: checkboxes | |
| id: affected_areas | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Affected documentation areas | |
| description: Which areas of documentation are affected? | |
| options: | |
| - label: Getting Started guide | |
| - label: API documentation | |
| - label: Tutorials | |
| - label: Examples | |
| - label: Configuration guide | |
| - label: Troubleshooting guide |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml
Outdated
| - type: dropdown | ||
| id: reproduces | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Reproduces how often | ||
| multiple: false | ||
| options: | ||
| - Easily reproduced | ||
| - Intermittent issue | ||
| - No steps to reproduce | ||
| default: 0 | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove or replace the reproduction frequency dropdown
The reproduction frequency dropdown isn't relevant for documentation issues.
- - type: dropdown
- id: reproduces
- attributes:
- label: Reproduces how often
- multiple: false
- options:
- - Easily reproduced
- - Intermittent issue
- - No steps to reproduce
- default: 0
- validations:
- required: true
+ - type: dropdown
+ id: doc_type
+ attributes:
+ label: Type of documentation issue
+ multiple: false
+ options:
+ - Incorrect information
+ - Missing information
+ - Unclear explanation
+ - Outdated content
+ - Broken links
+ - Other
+ default: 0
+ validations:
+ required: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: dropdown | |
| id: reproduces | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Reproduces how often | |
| multiple: false | |
| options: | |
| - Easily reproduced | |
| - Intermittent issue | |
| - No steps to reproduce | |
| default: 0 | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: dropdown | |
| id: doc_type | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Type of documentation issue | |
| multiple: false | |
| options: | |
| - Incorrect information | |
| - Missing information | |
| - Unclear explanation | |
| - Outdated content | |
| - Broken links | |
| - Other | |
| default: 0 | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_docs.yml
Outdated
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: A brief description of the issue | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: str | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Steps to reproduce | ||
| description: A series of steps to reproduce the issue | ||
| value: |- | ||
| 1. | ||
| 2. | ||
| 3. | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: result | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Actual result | ||
| description: What happened | ||
| placeholder: include screenshots if needed | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: expectation | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Expected result | ||
| description: What should've happened | ||
| placeholder: include screenshots if needed | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adapt description fields for documentation-specific issues
The current fields are generic bug report fields. Consider adapting them for documentation-specific issues.
- type: textarea
id: description
attributes:
label: Description
- description: A brief description of the issue
+ description: Describe what's unclear, incorrect, or missing in the documentation
validations:
required: true
- type: textarea
id: str
attributes:
- label: Steps to reproduce
- description: A series of steps to reproduce the issue
+ label: Location
+ description: Where in the documentation did you find this issue? Provide links if possible
value: |-
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
+ URL:
+ Section:
+ Page:
validations:
required: true
- type: textarea
id: result
attributes:
- label: Actual result
- description: What happened
- placeholder: include screenshots if needed
+ label: Current documentation
+ description: What does the current documentation say or show?
+ placeholder: Quote the relevant part or include screenshots
validations:
required: true
- type: textarea
id: expectation
attributes:
- label: Expected result
- description: What should've happened
- placeholder: include screenshots if needed
+ label: Suggested improvement
+ description: How should the documentation be improved?
+ placeholder: Provide your suggested changes or improvements
validations:
required: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: A brief description of the issue | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: str | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Steps to reproduce | |
| description: A series of steps to reproduce the issue | |
| value: |- | |
| 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: result | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Actual result | |
| description: What happened | |
| placeholder: include screenshots if needed | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: expectation | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Expected result | |
| description: What should've happened | |
| placeholder: include screenshots if needed | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: Describe what's unclear, incorrect, or missing in the documentation | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: str | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Location | |
| description: Where in the documentation did you find this issue? Provide links if possible | |
| value: |- | |
| URL: | |
| Section: | |
| Page: | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: result | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Current documentation | |
| description: What does the current documentation say or show? | |
| placeholder: Quote the relevant part or include screenshots | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: expectation | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Suggested improvement | |
| description: How should the documentation be improved? | |
| placeholder: Provide your suggested changes or improvements | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b23cb36
to
328b571
Compare
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
328b571
to
92cf7c4
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
92cf7c4
to
f4c7081
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (14)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_other.yml (3)
1-3: Enhance template metadata for better user guidance.Consider providing more specific guidance in the description to help users determine when to use this template, especially since other templates were removed.
name: Other -description: Create an issue that doesn't fit into any other category +description: | + Use this template for issues that don't fit into bug reports, feature requests, or ADRs. + Examples: documentation improvements, build issues, CI/CD concerns, or general questions. title: 'type(scope-of-issue): description'
5-11: Improve search section clarity and structure.The current structure could be more intuitive and informative.
- type: checkboxes id: search attributes: - label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Prerequisites + description: Please ensure you've completed these steps before submitting options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues) and found no duplicates + - label: I have included all relevant information to help others understand the issue
1-31: Consider architectural improvements for better issue management.
- Title Validation: Consider adding title validation to enforce the conventional commit format.
- Auto-labeling: Add labels configuration to automatically categorize issues.
- Template Consolidation: The removal of specific templates (ADR, bug report, etc.) might lead to loss of targeted information gathering. Consider whether this generic template adequately captures all necessary information.
name: Other description: Create an issue that doesn't fit into any other category title: 'type(scope-of-issue): description' +labels: ['triage'] + +validations: + title: + pattern: '^(feat|fix|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|chore|ci|build)\([a-z0-9-]+\):\s.+$' + message: | + Title must follow conventional commits format: + type(scope): description + + Example: docs(auth): update OAuth2 flow documentation body:.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_feature_request.yml (4)
1-5: Enhance template metadata clarity and guidance.Consider providing more specific guidance for the title format:
-title: 'feat(scope-of-issue): description' +title: 'feat(website|docs|portal): description of the feature request' -description: Request a new feature +description: | + Request a new feature for the CUHacking platform. + Please provide detailed information to help us understand and evaluate your request.
14-26: Refine platform selection options.The current platform selection could be improved:
options: - - all - Website - Docs - Portal + - All platforms default: 0Also consider:
- Removing the default selection to encourage conscious choice
- Adding a description to clarify when "All platforms" should be selected
41-47: Enhance alternatives section guidance.The alternatives section should prompt more thorough consideration:
-description: A brief description of any alternatives considered +description: | + Describe alternative solutions you've considered: + - What other approaches could solve this problem? + - Why were these alternatives not chosen? + - What are the trade-offs between your proposed solution and these alternatives?
48-52: Expand additional context suggestions.The additional context section could be more helpful:
-description: Any additional context or information (screenshots can be placed here) +description: | + Provide any additional context that might help us understand your request: + - Screenshots or mockups of the proposed feature + - Links to similar features in other projects + - Performance considerations or constraints + - Security implications + - Timeline requirements or deadlines.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_adr.yml (2)
1-3: Enhance title format clarityThe title format using 'description' as a placeholder might be confusing to users. Consider providing a more descriptive example.
-title: '[ADR]: description' +title: '[ADR]: Choose technology stack for authentication'
46-52: Fix comparative table code block languageThe template uses 'bash' as the code block language for a markdown table, which is incorrect.
- ```bash + ```markdown.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_bug.yml (5)
1-5: Enhance template metadata clarity and standardization.The description could be more specific about the scope of "affecting cuHacking 2025". Consider clarifying the components that are in scope.
name: Bug issue -description: Report a bug affecting cuHacking 2025 (this is including website, portal and docs) +description: Report a bug in cuHacking 2025 components (website, participant portal, admin portal, or documentation) title: '[BUG]: description-of-issue' labels: - bug
7-13: Improve search checkbox clarity and effectiveness.The search checkbox section could be more effective in preventing duplicate issues.
- type: checkboxes id: search attributes: - label: Search checkbox - description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible + label: Prerequisites + description: Please ensure you've completed these steps before submitting a new issue options: - - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? + - label: I have searched for similar issues in both open and closed tickets + - label: I have read the documentation and FAQ (if available) validations: + required: true
22-31: Enhance the steps to reproduce section with better guidance.The steps to reproduce section could benefit from more structured guidance to ensure quality bug reports.
- type: textarea id: str attributes: label: Steps to reproduce - description: A series of steps to reproduce the issue + description: Provide a detailed step-by-step guide to reproduce the issue. Include any necessary setup steps. value: |- - 1. - 2. - 3. + 1. Login state: (e.g., logged in as participant) + 2. Navigate to: (specific page/section) + 3. Action: (what you did) + 4. Additional steps: (if any)
60-71: Expand browser/device compatibility checklist.The reproducibility section could be more comprehensive to better capture the testing environment.
- type: checkboxes id: reproducibility attributes: label: Reproducibility - description: Does this issue occur... + description: Please check all environments where you've confirmed this issue occurs options: - - label: in Safari? - - label: in Firefox? - - label: in Chrome? - - label: for mobile devices? - - label: for tablet devices? - - label: for desktop devices? + - label: Chrome (specify version) + - label: Firefox (specify version) + - label: Safari (specify version) + - label: Edge (specify version) + - label: iOS Mobile (specify version) + - label: Android Mobile (specify version) + - label: iPad/Tablet (specify version) + - label: Desktop (specify OS)
1-76: Overall template structure is solid but could be more robust.The template provides a good foundation for bug reporting with all essential fields. The suggested improvements would make it more comprehensive and user-friendly, but the current version is already functional and follows GitHub's issue form schema correctly.
Consider adding these sections in a future iteration:
- Impact level (critical, major, minor)
- Related components affected
- Regression status (was it working before?)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (23)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/01_bug.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_adr.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/03_feature_request.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_other.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml(1 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md(0 hunks).github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md(0 hunks).github/pull_request_template.md(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (17)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/architectural-design-record--adr-.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/test.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/build.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/chore.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/continuous-integration--ci.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/docs.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/performance--perf.md
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/test.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml
- .github/pull_request_template.md
| - type: dropdown | ||
| id: platforms | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Platforms | ||
| multiple: true | ||
| options: | ||
| - all | ||
| - Website | ||
| - Docs | ||
| - Portal | ||
| default: 0 | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refine platforms dropdown for better clarity and coverage.
The current platform options and default selection could be improved.
- type: dropdown
id: platforms
attributes:
label: Platforms
multiple: true
options:
- - all
- Website
- Docs
- Portal
+ - Infrastructure
+ - Database
+ - API
+ - Mobile App
+ - Other (specify in description)
- default: 0
validations:
required: trueConsider removing the "all" option as it might conflict with multiple selection, and users can simply select all applicable options if needed.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: dropdown | |
| id: platforms | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Platforms | |
| multiple: true | |
| options: | |
| - all | |
| - Website | |
| - Docs | |
| - Portal | |
| default: 0 | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: dropdown | |
| id: platforms | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Platforms | |
| multiple: true | |
| options: | |
| - Website | |
| - Docs | |
| - Portal | |
| - Infrastructure | |
| - Database | |
| - API | |
| - Mobile App | |
| - Other (specify in description) | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/04_other.yml
Outdated
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: A brief description of what is needed to be done | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance description section with structured guidance.
The current description field could benefit from more detailed prompts to help users provide comprehensive information.
- type: textarea
id: description
attributes:
label: Description
- description: A brief description of what is needed to be done
+ description: |
+ Please provide:
+ 1. Current situation or context
+ 2. What needs to be done
+ 3. Why this is important
+ 4. Any relevant technical details or constraints
+ placeholder: |
+ Context: The documentation for API authentication is outdated...
+ Need: Update the authentication docs to reflect the new OAuth2 flow...
+ Importance: This will reduce support tickets and improve developer experience...
+ Technical Details: The new flow uses JWT tokens and requires...
validations:
required: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: A brief description of what is needed to be done | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: | | |
| Please provide: | |
| 1. Current situation or context | |
| 2. What needs to be done | |
| 3. Why this is important | |
| 4. Any relevant technical details or constraints | |
| placeholder: | | |
| Context: The documentation for API authentication is outdated... | |
| Need: Update the authentication docs to reflect the new OAuth2 flow... | |
| Importance: This will reduce support tickets and improve developer experience... | |
| Technical Details: The new flow uses JWT tokens and requires... | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: problem | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Problem Statement | ||
| description: A brief description of the what the issue of the feature request is | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix grammar and enhance problem statement guidance.
The problem statement section needs improvement:
-description: A brief description of the what the issue of the feature request is
+description: |
+ Clearly describe the problem or need that this feature would address.
+ - What is the current limitation or challenge?
+ - Who would benefit from this feature?
+ - What is the use case or scenario?📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: problem | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Problem Statement | |
| description: A brief description of the what the issue of the feature request is | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: problem | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Problem Statement | |
| description: | | |
| Clearly describe the problem or need that this feature would address. | |
| - What is the current limitation or challenge? | |
| - Who would benefit from this feature? | |
| - What is the use case or scenario? | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: solution | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Solution | ||
| description: A brief description of the solution taken | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve solution section guidance.
The solution description needs more structure:
-description: A brief description of the solution taken
+description: |
+ Describe your proposed solution in detail:
+ - How would this feature work?
+ - What are the expected inputs and outputs?
+ - How would users interact with this feature?
+ - What are the technical requirements?📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: solution | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Solution | |
| description: A brief description of the solution taken | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: solution | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Solution | |
| description: | | |
| Describe your proposed solution in detail: | |
| - How would this feature work? | |
| - What are the expected inputs and outputs? | |
| - How would users interact with this feature? | |
| - What are the technical requirements? | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
| - type: checkboxes | ||
| id: search | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Search checkbox | ||
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible | ||
| options: | ||
| - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add comprehensive pre-submission checklist.
Consider adding more pre-submission checks to ensure quality submissions:
options:
- label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)?
+ - label: Have you read our contribution guidelines?
+ - label: Is this feature aligned with the project's goals and scope?
+ - label: Have you considered the impact on existing features and users?📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: checkboxes | |
| id: search | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Search checkbox | |
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible | |
| options: | |
| - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? | |
| - type: checkboxes | |
| id: search | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Search checkbox | |
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible | |
| options: | |
| - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? | |
| - label: Have you read our contribution guidelines? | |
| - label: Is this feature aligned with the project's goals and scope? | |
| - label: Have you considered the impact on existing features and users? |
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/02_adr.yml
Outdated
| body: | ||
| - type: checkboxes | ||
| id: search | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Search checkbox | ||
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible | ||
| options: | ||
| - label: Have you searched for similar [issues](https://github.com/cuhacking/2025/issues)? | ||
| - type: dropdown | ||
| id: platforms | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Platforms | ||
| multiple: true | ||
| options: | ||
| - all | ||
| - Website | ||
| - Docs | ||
| - Portal | ||
| default: 0 | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: problem | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Problem Statement | ||
| description: A brief description of the what the issue of the design decision is | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: decision | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Decision | ||
| description: A brief description of the architectural decision taken | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: comparative_table | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Comparative Table of Technologies | ||
| description: |- | ||
| Create a table comparing the different technologies that were considered and show pros and cons for specific use cases. You can copy the template for a table here: | ||
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| | Use Case | Tech 1 | Tech 2 | | ||
| |----------|--------|--------| | ||
| | Use Case 1 | | | | ||
| | Use Case 2 | | | | ||
| | Use Case 3 | | | | ||
| ``` | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: solution | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Solution Summary | ||
| description: A summary of the solution of this decision | ||
| placeholder: |- | ||
| What is there to do next? | ||
| What features need to be implemented? | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
|
|
||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: alternatives | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Alternative Options | ||
| description: Are there any alternative options that were considered? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add missing crucial ADR sections
The template is missing some important sections typically found in ADRs.
Add these additional sections after the alternatives section:
- type: textarea
id: consequences
attributes:
label: Consequences
description: What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?
placeholder: |-
Positive consequences:
-
Negative consequences:
-
validations:
required: true
- type: dropdown
id: status
attributes:
label: Status
description: Current status of this architectural decision
options:
- Proposed
- Accepted
- Deprecated
- Superseded
validations:
required: true| label: Search checkbox | ||
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve search checkbox description
The current description is vague about what constitutes a sufficient description. Consider providing specific guidance.
- label: Search checkbox
- description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible
+ label: Pre-submission Checklist
+ description: Before submitting, please ensure your ADR meets these requirements:
+ - Clearly states the architectural problem
+ - Provides concrete technical details
+ - Includes implementation considerations
+ - Documents impact on the system📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| label: Search checkbox | |
| description: Insufficiently described issues will be closed, so please provide as much information as possible | |
| label: Pre-submission Checklist | |
| description: Before submitting, please ensure your ADR meets these requirements: | |
| - Clearly states the architectural problem | |
| - Provides concrete technical details | |
| - Includes implementation considerations | |
| - Documents impact on the system |
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: alternatives | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Alternative Options | ||
| description: Are there any alternative options that were considered? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance Alternative Options section
The Alternative Options section should be required and include specific prompts for thorough documentation of alternatives considered.
- type: textarea
id: alternatives
attributes:
label: Alternative Options
- description: Are there any alternative options that were considered?
+ description: List all alternative options that were considered, including:
+ - Brief description of each alternative
+ - Reasons for not choosing them
+ - Trade-offs and constraints
+ validations:
+ required: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: alternatives | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Alternative Options | |
| description: Are there any alternative options that were considered? | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: alternatives | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Alternative Options | |
| description: List all alternative options that were considered, including: | |
| - Brief description of each alternative | |
| - Reasons for not choosing them | |
| - Trade-offs and constraints | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: misc | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Miscellaneous information | ||
| description: Any additional information, related issues, extra QA steps, configuration or data that might be necessary to reproduce the issue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add a dedicated environment information section.
Consider adding a specific section for environment details before the miscellaneous information.
+ - type: textarea
+ id: environment
+ attributes:
+ label: Environment Information
+ description: Please provide specific details about your environment
+ value: |-
+ - OS and Version:
+ - Browser and Version:
+ - Device Type:
+ - Screen Resolution (if UI-related):
+ validations:
+ required: true
- type: textarea
id: misc📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: misc | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Miscellaneous information | |
| description: Any additional information, related issues, extra QA steps, configuration or data that might be necessary to reproduce the issue | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: environment | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Environment Information | |
| description: Please provide specific details about your environment | |
| value: |- | |
| - OS and Version: | |
| - Browser and Version: | |
| - Device Type: | |
| - Screen Resolution (if UI-related): | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: misc | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Miscellaneous information | |
| description: Any additional information, related issues, extra QA steps, configuration or data that might be necessary to reproduce the issue |
JeremyFriesenGitHub
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
f4c7081
to
e772069
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
e772069
to
77440fd
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
77440fd
to
a9e3d99
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
a9e3d99
to
ecbd5f0
Compare
HasithDeAlwis
force-pushed
the
jeremy/chore/161-update-pr-and-issue-templates
branch
from
ecbd5f0
to
ac9a5cb
Compare
|
🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 1.5.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Here is a potential look at a new pr template:
PR Requirements Checklist
PR Description
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
Other information:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation