-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement handling RFCs #1212
Implement handling RFCs #1212
Conversation
Co-authored-by: アレクサンダー.eth <[email protected]>
seems like the tests are using |
To avoid more potential issues, i changed back all function parameters to original and moved the creation of |
@xno-miner What issue this PR solves? I remember there was a discussion but can't find a related github issue. |
|
Your pull request body should be: Resolves ubiquity/work.ubq.fi#54 Read more at https://dao.ubq.fi/devpool-flow#28b52b32bc434aac8d8e6de501ee75e9 |
@xno-miner Hey, sorry for a long review, pls take a look at the review comments |
…nd DEVPOOL_RFC_REPO_NAME to .env (copy the values from .env.example)
@xno-miner Combining both devpool and RFC issue logic complicates the code because of newly introduced Perhaps it's more cleaner to:
Right now this is really hard to read. |
I think a few |
I removed the inverse logic involving |
@xno-miner I ran this script 2 times and immediately got rate limited by github API. As far as I understand it happens because now we get issues from 2 repositories here and overall perform 2x more API requests to github API. Perhaps it does make sense to:
This way we use 2 github apps (1st for |
I added the env variables. For devpool their values should be:
and for RFC they should be:
|
What's the progress of the review? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems the code hasn't been run because process.env.RFC
is always evaluating to true
(here, here, here, etc...). Env variables are always a string so it doesn't matter if we set process.env.RFC
to 0
or 1
because those are not empty string always evaluated to true
.
Pls:
- Fix
process.env.RFC
(cast to number?) - Provide QA examples of both devpool issues and RFC issues that clearly shows that the code is working as expected
- Resolve code conflicts
I created a variable
I have created a test suite for RFC issues, based on the test suite for devpool, and it appears to run successfully
I disabled it from being ran automatically for now, beacause it requires a different .env, but once the repository will be duplicated there will be 2 .envs and this won't be an issue. The instructions to run the test suite with the regular .env are in the test suite file (
Done. Just had to move the statistics logic in |
@xno-miner From rfc-issue-handler.test.ts.skip:
|
Ok. I managed to fix this. I just needed to add exclamation marks after env variables to unwrap them. Now there are no compile errors when testing. I also enabled |
export const DEVPOOL_OWNER_NAME = process.env.DEVPOOL_OWNER_NAME!; | ||
export const DEVPOOL_REPO_NAME = process.env.DEVPOOL_REPO_NAME!; | ||
export const IS_RFC = JSON.parse(process.env.RFC!); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Non-null assertion operator is considered a bad practice because if the value is null
then the app fails while the compiler is trying to make sure that even if the value is null
the app works as expected (or at least throws meaningful errors). The value!
syntax is not used anywhere in the codebase. Pls refactor accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I imagine that the linter settings are not in sync with our template here, given that this passed CI.
Perhaps this is technically our responsibility to handle these sort of problems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I imagine that the linter settings are not in sync with our template here, given that this passed CI.
Perhaps this is technically our responsibility to handle these sort of problems.
Seems you've already created a related issue ubiquity/ts-template#54
Closing in favor of #1250 |
No description provided.