feat: improve bug template

[pichlermarc]

Which problem is this PR solving?

We often get bug reports that don't give full details needed to reproduce.

There's new wording in the placeholder asking for steps to reproduce. There's now more emphasis on asking for reproducer repositories, as well as explaining why this is helpful.

I also added some more emphasis on build instructions and config files for tooling. It's somewhat common that users are very familiar with their stack and assume that we are too. I added a reminder to let them know that JavaScript is a complex ecosystem and that build instructions are immensely helpful in trying to resolve their issue

It's also quite common that users use unsupported runtimes - so I've introduced an optional field where they have to enter their runtime and runtime version so that we can spot it more easily when this is the case.

Finally there's some bugs that only surface on specific Operating Systems - so there's a new optional field for OS and version, which should be relatively easy for the user to provide.

How this looks like

GitHub preview does not fully represent how the issue templates actually looks like, so here's a screenshot of how it will look like (this is on a private repo so asterisks for required fields are missing - they will be there on this repo, since it's public)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 93.17%. Comparing base (72c9af9) to head (9f2067b).
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5086      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.18%   93.17%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         315      314       -1     
  Lines        8086     8076      -10     
  Branches     1617     1622       +5     
==========================================
- Hits         7535     7525      -10     
  Misses        551      551              

see 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[maryliag]

Nice improvements! Added a few nits

[pichlermarc]

@maryliag thanks for the feedback. 🙌
I've addressed some of the comments and also updated the screenshot with the new changes. I'd appreciate you having another look. 🙂

[maryliag]

Thanks for making the changes!
I just have this nit about the formatting of the steps that you can change or not, otherwise LGTM

[trentm]

Happy to have this merged as is, but I have some nits, suggestions, and Qs about "required: true" usage below.

[pichlermarc]

@trentm I addressed some of your comments, two of them are still open - please let me know about your preferred path forward on those.

I also updated the screenshot in the title again to reflect the current state 🙂

[JamieDanielson]

As we talked about offline, it might be more effective if we put all of this (useful!) information into a separate dedicated troubleshooting doc, and link to it from the bug report template

[pichlermarc]

Yep - will do, I removed the whole section and will introduce a troubleshooting guide instead. Then I'll introduce a single checkbox along the lines of "I went through the troubleshooting guide but the problem persists" that links to the guide.

I'll also link the guide from README.md.

[JamieDanielson]

Consider a note in troubleshooting doc for how to get your version (node --version, etc)

[pichlermarc]

I made it optional for now. If someone does not know how to do it they can leave it out. Let's see how well this works when it's optional. If people have problems with finding that info we'll see that bug reports omit the box.

In the follow-up PR to add the troubleshooting doc I'll also update the template here to link to it.

[pichlermarc]

Re-requesting review because the template has changed quite a bit since you all had a look.
I got rid of the troubleshooting section and will add another PR once this is merged to add a dedicated troubleshooting doc.