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

Check original line number and commit not to post same comments #87

Closed
haya14busa opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

Check original line number and commit not to post same comments #87

haya14busa opened this issue Mar 7, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@haya14busa
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@JensRantil
Copy link
Contributor

I'm am, too, interested in this. Would you mind if I submit a pull request for this?

@haya14busa
Copy link
Member Author

Sure. Do you have some rough design or something?

@JensRantil
Copy link
Contributor

@haya14busa Did migrating to a checker fix this issue?

@haya14busa
Copy link
Member Author

yes. For check API, we don't need to care about this problem.

reviewdog is still supporting reports through github review comments, so the problem isn't solved yet for -reporter=github-pr-review.

but i'll close this issue for now because i don't have plan to work on this issue. maybe we can re-visit later.
Thanks :)

@JensRantil
Copy link
Contributor

👍 Just curious, any particular reason to keep the old reviewer? Since the checks API seems better in every single way, maybe the old could be removed?

@haya14busa
Copy link
Member Author

New checks API is generally better, but the API is only available for GitHub apps.
So, reviewdog CLI need to talk to reviewdog server I created and the server will post Check API to GitHub.

As for -reporter=github-pr-review feature, reviewdog CLI directly talks to GitHub with personal access token.

For private repo users who don't want to, or it's difficult to trust my reviewdog server, it's better to use github-pr-review feature because it works standalone.

As for OSS repository, I think users should choose github-pr-check reporter by default unless the reviewdog server is broken ;)

@JensRantil
Copy link
Contributor

JensRantil commented Aug 19, 2018

For private repo users who don't want to, or it's difficult to trust my reviewdog server, it's better to use github-pr-review feature because it works standalone.

@haya14busa Ok. In that case, this issue is still standing for private repos. Would you mind reopening it (and maybe modify description that it's only relevant for private repos)? Or would you like me to create a new issue?

Do you have some rough design or something?

Idea: 1) find the first comment by its own user and 2a) if found, modify the comment; otherwise 2b) post a new comment. This is what CodeCov does. See here for an example (click "Edited" in the comment header). What do you think of this approach?

@JensRantil
Copy link
Contributor

Would you mind reopening it (and maybe modify description that it's only relevant for private repos)?

@haya14busa Ping.

@haya14busa haya14busa reopened this Mar 20, 2019
@haya14busa
Copy link
Member Author

This may fixed one reviedog supports GitHub actions

@haya14busa
Copy link
Member Author

The latest reviewdog supports GitHub Action and can use github-pr-check reporter.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants