Fix in label synchronization bot according to issue #40758 #40839

soehms · 2025-09-17T06:13:38Z

This PR fixes #40758.

The action https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/.github/sync_labels.py should not change "needs work" (maybe "needs info" too, but we don't use that as much so I'm not sure if it has different behaviour currently) to "needs review" when the commit message matches the default message for a merge commit.
Alternatives Considered

This is achieved by ignoring merge commits when the latest commit date is determined in case a s: needs_work label exists. Since s: needs_work persists if there is a more recent review requesting changes this should solve the problem.

Merging develop should still trigger a new CI run. I don't imagine that this change would effect that though.

This remains unchanged.

Check whether merging from the command line with git and merging from the GitHub web interface generate the same default merge commit messages.

In both cases, the predefined message begins with Merge and contains the word develop. I just check that this is valid. However, note that the user (at least in the in the command line) has the option of changing the messages. Therefore, we generally cannot detect merge commits exactly.

This PR also implements a new method test_method just for test purposes. This allows to run arbitrary methods of the class from the command line.

📝 Checklist

The title is concise and informative.
The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
I have created tests covering the changes.
I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

⌛ Dependencies

soehms · 2025-09-17T06:29:38Z

Testcase

As a first testcase I use #39881, since this has two merge commits and s: needs_work label set.

Since one of the merge commits (1d726b686c97eea0b4ad3bffe3e365ed9c7926f7) is the last commit ({'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z') the self._commit_date should be set to an earlier date with the fix.

Using the new test_method one gets:

sage$ python .github/sync_labels.py https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39881 soehms get_commits {} -t
INFO:root:cmdline_args (4) ['https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39881', 'soehms', 'get_commits', '{}']
...
DEBUG:root:call get_commits with args () and kwds {}
DEBUG:root:================================================================================
DEBUG:root:Execute command: gh pr view https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39881 --json commits
DEBUG:root:Execute command: gh pr view https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39881 --json labels
INFO:root:List of labels for pull request #39881: ['s: needs work', 'c: finite rings']

DEBUG:root:Ignore merge commit 0c56dbebf51d6603b00b4a064944c26ae930462c for commit_date
DEBUG:root:Ignore merge commit 1d726b686c97eea0b4ad3bffe3e365ed9c7926f7 for commit_date

INFO:root:Commits until 2025-04-05T07:59:06Z for pull request #39881: [{'authoredDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Release Manager'}], 'committedDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'Updated SageMath version to 10.6.rc1', 'oid': '8a8453f35f3850c74d151a9f1c41778aac1f9e88'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop", 'oid': '0c56dbebf51d6603b00b4a064944c26ae930462c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:08Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:46Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'improve Frobenius endomorphisms over extensions of finite fields', 'oid': '52b8e19639f7dc03bed605b7528239a9433c540c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T06:31:33Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:33:28Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'check finite field in the category', 'oid': '26ff7f192c4905747002aec87f2600abb59015ed'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'add a doctest', 'oid': 'd31a1decaceec003140293c37ad16763454347a8'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': 'MDQ6VXNlcjY1MTYwOTg=', 'login': 'xcaruso', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' into ore_over_extension", 'oid': '1d726b686c97eea0b4ad3bffe3e365ed9c7926f7'}]

INFO:root:result of get_commits with args () and kwds {} is [{'authoredDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Release Manager'}], 'committedDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'Updated SageMath version to 10.6.rc1', 'oid': '8a8453f35f3850c74d151a9f1c41778aac1f9e88'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop", 'oid': '0c56dbebf51d6603b00b4a064944c26ae930462c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:08Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:46Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'improve Frobenius endomorphisms over extensions of finite fields', 'oid': '52b8e19639f7dc03bed605b7528239a9433c540c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T06:31:33Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:33:28Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'check finite field in the category', 'oid': '26ff7f192c4905747002aec87f2600abb59015ed'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'add a doctest', 'oid': 'd31a1decaceec003140293c37ad16763454347a8'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': 'MDQ6VXNlcjY1MTYwOTg=', 'login': 'xcaruso', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' into ore_over_extension", 'oid': '1d726b686c97eea0b4ad3bffe3e365ed9c7926f7'}]

INFO:root:================================================================================

DEBUG:root:state of self: {'_url': 'https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39881', '_actor': 'soehms', '_warning_prefix': 'Label Sync Warning:', '_hint_prefix': 'Label Sync Hint:', '_labels': ['s: needs work', 'c: finite rings'], '_author': None, '_draft': None, '_open': None, '_review_decision': None, '_reviews': None, '_reviews_from_rest_api': None, '_review_requests': None, '_commits': [{'authoredDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Release Manager'}], 'committedDate': '2025-03-27T22:39:59Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'Updated SageMath version to 10.6.rc1', 'oid': '8a8453f35f3850c74d151a9f1c41778aac1f9e88'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-01T07:30:34Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop", 'oid': '0c56dbebf51d6603b00b4a064944c26ae930462c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:08Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-04T18:16:46Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'improve Frobenius endomorphisms over extensions of finite fields', 'oid': '52b8e19639f7dc03bed605b7528239a9433c540c'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T06:31:33Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:33:28Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'check finite field in the category', 'oid': '26ff7f192c4905747002aec87f2600abb59015ed'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': '', 'login': '', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': 'add a doctest', 'oid': 'd31a1decaceec003140293c37ad16763454347a8'}, {'authoredDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'authors': [{'email': '[email protected]', 'id': 'MDQ6VXNlcjY1MTYwOTg=', 'login': 'xcaruso', 'name': 'Xavier Caruso'}], 'committedDate': '2025-04-05T08:03:07Z', 'messageBody': '', 'messageHeadline': "Merge branch 'develop' into ore_over_extension", 'oid': '1d726b686c97eea0b4ad3bffe3e365ed9c7926f7'}], '_commit_date': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z', '_bot_login': 'soehms', '_gh_version': "b'gh version 2.74.0-19-gea8fc856e (2025-06-09)", '_owner': 'sagemath', '_repo': 'sage', '_number': '39881', '_pr': True, '_issue': 'pull request #39881'}

The assertion is confirmed in the last line: '_commit_date': '2025-04-05T07:59:06Z'! Also note that self._commits still contains the full list of commits, ensuring that the change shouldn't cause a regression with this.

github-actions · 2025-09-17T07:30:51Z

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 111257b; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

vincentmacri

A question and a suggestion.

Also, how can we test this before I approve it?

vincentmacri · 2025-09-17T20:28:48Z

.github/sync_labels.py

+        if Status.needs_work.value in self.get_labels():
+            for com in date_commits:
+                message =  com['messageHeadline']
+                if message.startswith('Merge') and message.find('develop') > 0:


Suggested change

if message.startswith('Merge') and message.find('develop') > 0:

if message.startswith("Merge branch 'develop' into "):

Would this work? Since it's more specific it's less likely to have a false positive.

Never mind, I see you already mentioned this. You can ignore this suggestion if you think people changing the merge commit message could be an issue.

There are also default messages that wouldn't match, for example in #40448: Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into remove-incremental

vincentmacri · 2025-09-17T20:30:02Z

.github/sync_labels.py

+
+        # ignore merge commits with the develop branch for commit_date if needs_work is set
+        date_commits = list(self._commits)
+        if Status.needs_work.value in self.get_labels():


Is there a reason not to include the needs info tag as well here?

No! I will include it in the next commit.

soehms · 2025-09-18T06:31:35Z

Also, how can we test this before I approve it?

This is a bit complicated. I've created a dummy PR (soehms#16) in my fork relative to the branch of this PR. I've declared the latter as the default branch so that GH-Action uses the changes in get_commits.

You should request changes on this PR. Afterwards I will merge the change concerning s: needs info into this PR.

vincentmacri

Or is the PR you wanted me to request changes on?

I think that the behaviour being changed here should be agnostic to if changes were requested through the "review changes" interface or someone manually setting the "needs work" label.

.github/sync_labels.py

soehms · 2025-09-19T07:09:54Z

Or is the PR you wanted me to request changes on?

We cannot test the new changes with this PR because GH-Actions inherits the code from the base branch of the PR, which is develop.

I think that the behaviour being changed here should be agnostic to if changes were requested through the "review changes" interface or someone manually setting the "needs work" label.

That's right! This is the case when all of the bot's triggers are activated, meaning synchronization is bidirectional, meaning a change in the GH states translates into a change in the labels and vice versa. Currently, the direction from states to labels isn't even fully activated (changes in the review state are missing). For the return path, the activation of label changes is missing. You can see the current activation status in the header of #35927:

If all triggers are enabled, your scenario works like this:

A reviewer sets the label s: needs review. The bot adds a review requesting changes. Since this feature is not currently enabled, the reviewer must do this manually.
The author merges the branch into develop. The bot does not change the label because there is no significant commit after the requested changes.
The author pushes a commit with significant changes. The bot changes the label to s: needs review.

Co-authored-by: Vincent Macri <[email protected]>

soehms · 2025-09-19T07:19:30Z

Sorry, time is over for the moment. I'll do the s: needs info change later on!

tobiasdiez · 2025-09-19T09:00:04Z

I'm wondering (loud) if it makes sense to never change needs work to needs review. Take for example this PR: Vincent had a few remarks, some but not all of them were addressed in a new commit - and the bot put it now onto needs review, although it is still in needs work.

This would also align it a bit better with the github interface: Vincent's review still shows as "requested changes" although there was a commit afterwards.

But I'm probably missing something essential here, in that case, sorry for the noise.

Btw, what's blocking the activation of

submitting a review to a PR, bot reaction: #35172 (comment), #36292

This would be quite convenient to have, and looks very similar to the already active "marking a draft PR as ready for review"

vincentmacri · 2025-09-19T21:34:21Z

I'm wondering (loud) if it makes sense to never change needs work to needs review. Take for example this PR: Vincent had a few remarks, some but not all of them were addressed in a new commit - and the bot put it now onto needs review, although it is still in needs work.

I think this came up on sage-devel.

The problem is that changing labels requires certain GitHub permissions that not all contributors (particularly new contributors) have. So if a reviewer requests changes, the changes are made, and the reviewer doesn't look at the changes then the PR will be stuck marked as "needs work" and will probably get ignored. If that happened to one of my PRs I could change the label. If it happens to a new contributor they wouldn't have any way of bringing attention to their PR (besides tagging people, and they probably wouldn't know who to tag and might not be comfortable tagging random people they've never interacted with).

I think the main issue with the bot changing the labels to needs review when it doesn't need a review is that it makes it harder to find PRs that actually need a review. This PR should cut down on that noise a lot, even if there may still be some situations where the bot changes the label too early.

soehms · 2025-09-20T17:16:40Z

I'm wondering (loud) if it makes sense to never change needs work to needs review. Take for example this PR: Vincent had a few remarks, some but not all of them were addressed in a new commit - and the bot put it now onto needs review, although it is still in needs work.

This would also align it a bit better with the github interface: Vincent's review still shows as "requested changes" although there was a commit afterwards.

But I'm probably missing something essential here, in that case, sorry for the noise.

I also had Vincent's point in mind. On the other hand, a developer who can't set labels has two more options for setting s: needs review after making the requested changes.

The GH-way: Re-request a review from the reviewer who requested the changes. The bot should already be able to set the label. Possible restrictions:
- I'm not sure if a re-request will trigger the bot in the same way as an initial review request
- I'm not sure if this feature is commonly known
The brute-force way: Convert the PR to a draft and then back to ready for review after making the requested changes. Possible restrictions:
- I don't know if this would clear the review status of the PR

In the sage-devel thread, you stated that our s: labels are becoming obsolete:

I second that "needs review" and "needs work" are mostly obsolete and should be better handled by native github tools.

I agree that we shouldn't use these labels directly if possible. However, they may still be necessary to reflect the status of the PR and facilitate searching within PRs. A re-review request attracts less attention than a s: needs review label.

Therefore, we should now focus on one-way synchronization from GH tools to labels. I agree that the more accurately the labels reflect the GH status, the better. From this perspective, I support your suggestion.

Btw, what's blocking the activation of

submitting a review to a PR, bot reaction: #35172 (comment), #36292

This would be quite convenient to have, and looks very similar to the already active "marking a draft PR as ready for review"

I really don't know the answer. I think it just disappeared from the screen.

This would be quite convenient to have, and looks very similar to the already active "marking a draft PR as ready for review"

I agree! If you'd like to activate it, please let me know the date. I'll make the announcement then.

When this is done, the one-way sync mentioned above will be completed. I think this will be enough if the labels will only be set manually when there is no other option!

user202729 · 2025-09-21T10:22:16Z

We cannot test the new changes with this PR because GH-Actions inherits the code from the base branch of the PR, which is develop.

It's possible to test it, which involves forking Sage, enabling GitHub actions on the fork, then merge the PR into the develop branch of the fork, and open a pull request on the fork.

vincentmacri · 2025-09-22T00:16:09Z

1. The GH-way: Re-request a review from the reviewer who requested the changes. The bot should already be able to set the label. Possible restrictions:
   
   [...]

   * I'm not sure if this feature is commonly known

We should make things easy for first-time contributors, so we can't expect them to know about this. Especially as many Sage contributors are mathematicians who may have little (if any) familiarity with git/GitHub.

2. The brute-force way: Convert the PR to a draft and then back to _ready for review_ after making the requested changes. Possible restrictions:
   
   * I don't know if this would clear the review status of the PR

Same comment applies, new contributors may not know this.

Ultimately I think the point of this PR is to decrease the noise of unnecessary "needs review" tags with our current workflow.

vincentmacri · 2025-09-22T00:16:37Z

We cannot test the new changes with this PR because GH-Actions inherits the code from the base branch of the PR, which is develop.

It's possible to test it, which involves forking Sage, enabling GitHub actions on the fork, then merge the PR into the develop branch of the fork, and open a pull request on the fork.

I think that's what soehms#16 is for.

sync_labels_merge_commit initial

64b7607

soehms added the github_actions Pull requests that update GitHub Actions code label Sep 17, 2025

Merge branch 'develop' into sync_labels_merge_commit

06739b5

soehms marked this pull request as ready for review September 17, 2025 17:48

github-actions bot added the s: needs review label Sep 17, 2025

soehms requested a review from vincentmacri September 17, 2025 17:49

vincentmacri suggested changes Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

vincentmacri added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Sep 17, 2025

vincentmacri suggested changes Sep 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

vincentmacri reviewed Sep 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

.github/sync_labels.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

40839: review changes

111257b

Co-authored-by: Vincent Macri <[email protected]>

github-actions bot added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Sep 19, 2025

soehms added t: bug s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Sep 19, 2025

	if message.startswith('Merge') and message.find('develop') > 0:
	if message.startswith("Merge branch 'develop' into "):

Uh oh!

Fix in label synchronization bot according to issue #40758 #40839

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Fix in label synchronization bot according to issue #40758 #40839

Uh oh!

Conversation

soehms commented Sep 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📝 Checklist

⌛ Dependencies

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Testcase

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vincentmacri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vincentmacri Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vincentmacri Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soehms Sep 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vincentmacri Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soehms Sep 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 18, 2025

Uh oh!

vincentmacri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

tobiasdiez commented Sep 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vincentmacri commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 20, 2025

Uh oh!

user202729 commented Sep 21, 2025

Uh oh!

vincentmacri commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

vincentmacri commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

soehms commented Sep 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

soehms commented Sep 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tobiasdiez commented Sep 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading