Convert issue templates into forms

[potiuk]

Following the discussion at
https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/r36d084d83cf7a66698c84185558e1bbe971c59533d4ac5d4994b0aca@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E

The issue templates are now Forms.

Depends on #17858

[potiuk]

You can try it here: https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/issues/new/choose - feel free to create new issues there to see how they look like!

[potiuk]

Screenshots for those who are afraid to create new issues :)

[potiuk]

Small (but important) addition:

[BasPH]

Love it! Will review for typos, but 💯 for this change!

[potiuk]

Love it! Will review for typos, but 💯 for this change!

Oh yeah. I really hope it's gone bring the quality of the issues we got up and their number down.

But you never know. The users are creative :D

[potiuk]

This was also my instinct - I feel like as part of a triage process, we should be able to convert issues to a Meta issue after the fact or to a label.

See my reasoning above @leahecole . I am not super-strong about it, but this is the best balance I found between "easy way to add meta features/tasks" by maintainers and "difficult to enter legitmate issue without providing all the necessary details" by contributors.

[leahecole]

Mostly grammar related nits. Really glad you're doing this - thank you so much @potiuk!

[potiuk]

Also, should we note in all forms that if you have a code change ready to PR, there is no need to open an issue first.

Good point. I will add it!

[eladkal]

Not that it will stop some people, but we then will be able to close such issues immediately with "you are not maintainer"

Sounds like a good job for a bot 😎

[potiuk]

Sounds like a good job for a bot 😎

Oh yeah!

[potiuk]

I think I addressed all comments. Please take a look @eladkal @leahecole @BasPH @jedcunningham @uranusjr and anyone else interested.

The change depends on #17858 - as during testing I found out some issues with pre-commits validating provider.yaml (and #17858 corrects errors resulting from it)

To make it easier to review, I squashed all the speling/etc fixes into a single commit, and added all new things in the fixup commit that follows. Those are:

• added separate doc-issue
• added separate providers issue (with multi-select list of affected providers, yay! - and also added pre-commit to verify if we have all providers there :))
• added nice preamble to explain that maybe you do not need to create the issue at all
• added some explanation to versions of airflow (main -> development, 2.1.3 - > latest released version)
• better sorting of issues in the issue list (bugs go first)

You can try it out here: https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/issues/new/choose

[potiuk]

And @eladkal -> labels are set properly to doc/core/provider kind of issues. Should help with triaging :)

[jedcunningham]

Missed one 🤦‍♂️

[potiuk]

The latest fixup contains last round of grammar/content reviews. I think we are close to a "mergable" status on that one.

I thought hat we might want to be more "welcoming" and "airflow-y" in the issues and here is what I came up with:

Any more comments? Again - you can play with the latest version here: https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/issues/new/choose

[eladkal]

Great work!

[potiuk]

I am going to merge it as is, and we can always make corrections later :D

[potiuk]

[After fixing the static check that is]

[potiuk]

Rebuilding to check latest constraint works after celery 5 merge.

I guess all handled ?

[github-actions]

The PR most likely needs to run full matrix of tests because it modifies parts of the core of Airflow. However, committers might decide to merge it quickly and take the risk. If they don't merge it quickly - please rebase it to the latest main at your convenience, or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.