Create pending_user_response.py #13881

nil-is-all · 2025-09-02T21:02:37Z

Python script for Workflow automation for pending_user_response.yml based on the following:

If an issue or PR has 'needs-user-input' label, and it has been 30 days since the last comment, comment and tag the user asking them to take a look.
And 30 days after this comment from the workflow, if no response, close the issue with a comment stating the user did not respond and they can re-open if needed.
If the user responds, remove the 'needs-user-input' label.

Python script for Workflow automation for pending_user_response.yml based on the following: - If an issue or PR has 'needs-user-input' label, and it has been 30 days since the last comment, comment and tag the user asking them to take a look. - And 30 days after this comment from the workflow, if no response, close the issue with a comment stating the user did not respond and they can re-open if needed. - If the user responds, remove the 'needs-user-input' label.

pytorch-bot · 2025-09-02T21:02:53Z

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/13881

📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ You can merge normally! (4 Unrelated Failures)

As of commit d27291b with merge base 6d8583d ():

BROKEN TRUNK - The following jobs failed but were present on the merge base:

👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures

pull / test-binary-size-linux-gcc / linux-job (gh) (trunk failure)
##[error]The operation was canceled.
pull / test-moshi-linux / linux-job (gh) (trunk failure)
##[error]The operation was canceled.
pull / test-openvino-linux / linux-job (gh) (trunk failure)
##[error]The operation was canceled.
pull / test-setup-linux-gcc / linux-job (gh) (trunk failure)
##[error]The operation was canceled.

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

github-actions · 2025-09-02T21:03:14Z

This PR needs a `release notes:` label

If your change should be included in the release notes (i.e. would users of this library care about this change?), please use a label starting with release notes:. This helps us keep track and include your important work in the next release notes.

To add a label, you can comment to pytorchbot, for example
@pytorchbot label "release notes: none"

For more information, see
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/wiki/PyTorch-AutoLabel-Bot#why-categorize-for-release-notes-and-how-does-it-work.

Workflow automation for addressing issues/PRs pending user response. - follows script in pending_user_response.py

mergennachin

The code removes the label when a user responds, but never adds it initially. There's no logic for when the need-user-input label gets applied in the first place.
The code could create multiple reminder comments if run multiple times, since it only checks if not auto_comments but doesn't prevent duplicate reminders. For example, you want to make explicitly check that it doesn't comment more than once in a week.

mergennachin · 2025-09-03T00:48:27Z

.github/workflows/pending_user_response.py

+        if not auto_comments:
+            if last_comment and (now - last_comment.created_at).days >= DAYS_BEFORE_REMINDER:
+                # Tag the issue author or PR author
+                user = issue.user.login
+                # issue.create_comment(REMINDER_COMMENT.format(user))
+                print(f"[VALIDATION] Would remind {user} on issue/PR #{issue.number}")
+


I think you could improve as follow to make it more robust:

if not auto_comments:

Find last comment from the relevant user

Only remind if the last user comment is old enough

mergennachin · 2025-09-03T00:49:03Z

.github/workflows/pending_user_response.py

+        # Case 2: Automation comment exists, but no user response after 30 more days
+        elif auto_comments:
+            last_auto = auto_comments[-1]
+            # Any user response after automation?


Check for ANY response after the last automation comment (not just from the original author)

Check for ANY response after the last automation comment (not just from the original author)

This condition could still include cases where the user has not responded yet, and would remove the 'need-user-input' label unnecessarily. By adding an author-specific comment, I am checking if the user is the one who has responded after the bot reminder.

nil-is-all · 2025-09-03T15:54:59Z

Hi @mergennachin, thanks for the review. The duplicate comment issue is a valid concern, and will make changes accordingly to avoid it. I have some queries regarding the other aspects:

The code removes the label when a user responds, but never adds it initially. There's no logic for when the need-user-input label gets applied in the first place.

I feel the 'need-user-input' label should be added manually, since the best (and only) way to recognize if a discussion involves a user to get back is by reading the reviewer's comments. Many issues I came across had discussions where the last comment, even though made by a PyTorch Edge reviewer, was a discussion within the engineering team/partner team.

GregoryComer · 2025-09-09T17:43:15Z

.github/workflows/pending_user_response.py

+    # repo = g.get_repo(REPO_NAME)
+
+    print("[VALIDATION] Would connect to Github and fetch repo:", REPO_NAME)
+    # issues = repo.get_issues(state='open', labels=[LABEL])


Can you re-enable the this API call in order to allow testing of fetching issues? We can still leave the actual commenting and labeling disabled.

Enabled these lines now.

Uncommented start of main() [lines 21-25 impacted]

GregoryComer · 2025-09-09T17:57:17Z

The code removes the label when a user responds, but never adds it initially. There's no logic for when the need-user-input label gets applied in the first place.

On this point, my recommendation was to manually add the label, as it may be difficult to automatically infer when we are actually waiting on a user response. For example, if a maintainer mentions that something is being actively worked on, we wouldn't want to auto-label as pending user response and ping them for a comment to avoid closing. I'm open to changing the approach, though.

GregoryComer · 2025-09-09T18:40:23Z

.github/workflows/pending_user_response.py

+    now = datetime.datetime.utcnow()
+
+    # Simulate issues for validation workflow
+    issues = []  # Replace with mock issues if needed


Can you remove this line now that we're fetching the actual issues? Once that's ready and the lint job is passing, I think we can merge it to start dry-run testing in parallel with the ongoing discussion about the staling policy.

done, and added workflow dispatch. Lmk if it is good to merge

GregoryComer · 2025-09-09T18:44:59Z

.github/workflows/pending_user_response.yml

+
+on:
+  schedule:
+    - cron: '0 8 * * 1'  # runs every Monday at 8:00 UTC


Can you also add on workflow dispatch to allow manual triggering? Here's an example: https://github.com/pytorch/executorch/blob/main/.github/workflows/trunk.yml#L11

…ssues

Added a reminder logic to comment only if no reminder in last 7 days

Python script for Workflow automation for pending_user_response.yml based on the following: - If an issue or PR has 'needs-user-input' label, and it has been 30 days since the last comment, comment and tag the user asking them to take a look. - And 30 days after this comment from the workflow, if no response, close the issue with a comment stating the user did not respond and they can re-open if needed. - If the user responds, remove the 'needs-user-input' label.

meta-cla bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Sep 2, 2025

nil-is-all added 2 commits September 2, 2025 16:15

Create pending_user_response.yml

8d87136

Workflow automation for addressing issues/PRs pending user response. - follows script in pending_user_response.py

removed API calls in pending_user_response.py

440ffc8

mergennachin reviewed Sep 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

GregoryComer reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

re-enable API call to allow testing of fetching issues

cd95949

Uncommented start of main() [lines 21-25 impacted]

GregoryComer reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

nil-is-all added 10 commits September 9, 2025 14:52

Removed issue simulation in python script since we now fetch actual i…

40eceb8

…ssues

Update pending_user_response.py to prevent duplicate reminders

c209a62

Added a reminder logic to comment only if no reminder in last 7 days

Update pending_user_response.yml to have workflow dispatch

78ca940

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lintrunner

2b32d3a

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lintrunner

7fff2bf

Merge branch 'main' into nil-is-all-patch-1

a194264

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lint runner

2fca973

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lint runner

ab5b2fa

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lintrunner

dc11a0e

Update pending_user_response.py to fix lintrunner

1292f32

GregoryComer approved these changes Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into nil-is-all-patch-1

d27291b

nil-is-all merged commit 323a9e8 into main Sep 12, 2025
116 of 120 checks passed

nil-is-all deleted the nil-is-all-patch-1 branch September 12, 2025 18:12

Create pending_user_response.py #13881

Create pending_user_response.py #13881

Uh oh!

Conversation

nil-is-all commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

pytorch-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/13881

✅ You can merge normally! (4 Unrelated Failures)

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2025

This PR needs a release notes: label

Uh oh!

mergennachin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mergennachin Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mergennachin Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nil-is-all Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nil-is-all commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GregoryComer Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nil-is-all Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GregoryComer commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

GregoryComer Sep 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nil-is-all Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GregoryComer Sep 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

pytorch-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

This PR needs a `release notes:` label

nil-is-all commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

GregoryComer Sep 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

GregoryComer Sep 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading