Skip to content
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

tools: release-notes minor fixes #14632

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

theanalyst
Copy link
Member

@theanalyst theanalyst commented Apr 19, 2017

  • don't check for duplicate pr titles when commit messages have an empty description
  • minor fixes for split component
    • make labels a set
    • have more options for prefixes via a union with existing prefixes
    • sort results of prefixes before creating title

Since `duplicate_pr_title` is only set when we have a line, set the
boolean as False and set a value only if we can find a value for the line

Signed-off-by: Abhishek Lekshmanan <abhishek@suse.com>
make labels a set as intersection would fail otherwise, also sort the
results of prefixes before creating the title

Signed-off-by: Abhishek Lekshmanan <abhishek@suse.com>
@theanalyst theanalyst requested review from a user and smithfarm April 19, 2017 08:44
@@ -104,9 +104,9 @@ def split_component(title, gh, number):
issue_labels = {it['name'] for it in issue['labels']}
if 'documentation' in issue_labels:
return 'doc: ' + title
item = labels.intersection(issue_labels)
item = (labels.union(set(prefixes))).intersection(issue_labels)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the purpose of combining labels with prefixes? Will issue_labels ever match an element of prefixes that is not already in labels?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm I looked at this wrong, what I wanted is if the pr is not labeled and there is a prefix that matches then we pass instead of returning unknown which we're doing now, this requires one more modification, I'll look into it.

@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like #14385 does not conflict, but it would be nice if it could be merged along with this one.

@theanalyst
Copy link
Member Author

@smithfarm sorry for leaving that open, merged,

@liewegas liewegas added the tools label Apr 19, 2017
@tchaikov
Copy link
Contributor

@smithfarm @dachary ping?

@theanalyst
Copy link
Member Author

@tchaikov sorry for letting this rot, I need to make one more fix before we merge

@theanalyst
Copy link
Member Author

part of #16605

@theanalyst theanalyst closed this Jul 27, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants