[docs-infra] Adjust the links to search for issues #11995
Conversation
michelengelen
added
core
|
Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-11995--material-ui-x.netlify.app/ Updated pages: |
michelengelen
changed the title
oliviertassinari
changed the title
oliviertassinari
changed the title
|
I really wonder if we shouldn't create a new label for all of this type of work. Like a [devex-infra] label, or [support-infra], [product-infra]. For now, [core] is ok, but it's not [code-infra] or [docs-infra]. Otherwise, how about this: We introduce abroad [infra] level, it's like [core] but shared across repositories, and it's a catch-all until there is a clear pattern to specialize [code-infra] and [docs-infra] are specialization examples). https://www.notion.so/mui-org/scope-infra-c446897d1449403ea7ffe076ddedc00a |
oliviertassinari
added
the
scope: infra
oliviertassinari
changed the title
|
On another note: we could probably add org templates instead, if we would be willing to give up the custom names. I was reading about this today and it might be a good way of reducing maintenance work! |
@michelengelen agree, we should explore this. The related issues: https://github.com/mui/mui-private/issues/386, https://github.com/mui/mui-private/issues/360. |
michelengelen
changed the title
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/1.bug.yml
Outdated
| @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ body: | |||
| attributes: | |||
| label: Search keywords | |||
| description: | | |||
| Your issue may have already been reported! First search for duplicates among the [existing issues](https://github.com/mui/mui-x/issues). | |||
| Your issue may have already been reported! First search for duplicates among the [existing issues](https://github.com/mui/mui-x/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aclosed). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that we are missing the extra is:issue argument in all of these instances.
By going to /issues both is:issue and is:open filters are applied.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit of a generalistic question.
- PRs on github are also issues and
is:issuewould exclude them: Do we want to include PRs in this search or not? 🤷🏼 is:openwill not show any closed issues, but since the issue might be already asked/solved we absolutely want to have them in this list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But PRs generally target resolving an issue.
I'm not sure we should be polluting the list of searchable entries by including PRs. 🤷
I just raised the point, that this technically causes a "regression" as compared to the existing approach.
If we actually want to include PRs as well, then sure, all is good, but I didn't see anything mentioned about this in the description, hence the flagging. 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no strong opinion on incuding PRs or not ... Most of the time the search should be accompanied by a search term to limit the results anyways, so the PRs might not be as prominent.
On the other hand you are right about the purpose of PRs in general. There might be additional information in them that could sometimes lead the user to a solution they are looking for, but there are too many ifs and buts in this.
I will add the is:issue parameter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or rather: I will change this to https://github.com/mui/mui-x/issues?q=is%3Aissue
This will naturally include all issue states! 👍🏼
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, that seems to be the most correct. 👍
I double-checked, that adding both is:open and is:closed filters seems to work incorrectly. 🙈
The only way to achieve identical results is by applying the following filter:
is:issue is:open|is:closed
I noticed that the link in the issues templates leads to the default issue search, which looks for
is:issueandis:open. Since the solution could also be in a closed issue this should be adjusted.One question remains: should we mention in the text that there could also be a closed issue with a solution as well? 🤔