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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Disable most documentation notifications on GitHub #37740

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 12, 2024

Conversation

saraedum
Copy link
Member

@saraedum saraedum commented Apr 3, 2024

Previously, the documentation comment on GitHub would be removed and then recreated whenever there is a change to a PR which creates notification emails and to some feels like it's polluting their GitHub inbox.

Here, we change this behavior so that only the initial build of the documentation causes such a notification. Further updates to the documentation do update the links in the comment but do not trigger a notification.

This is meant as an alternative to #37387. See #37739 for futher ideas about a smarter behavior here.

An actual preview of the result can be seen here: saraedum#2

Note that the links on that PR do not work because my fork does not have netlify credentials configured.

馃摑 Checklist

  • The title is concise and informative.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes; this is fairly hard to test automatically. I'll test this manually if there is interest in merging this.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly; kind of, I updated the PR checklist.

Previously, the documentation comment on GitHub would be removed and
then recreated which creates notification emails and to some feels like
it's polluting their GitHub inbox.

Here, we change this behavior so that only the initial build of the
documentation causes such a notification. Further updates to the
documentation, do update the links in the comment but do not trigger a
notification.

This is meant as an alternative to sagemath#37387. See sagemath#37739 for futher ideas
about a smarter behavior here.
@saraedum saraedum added s: needs review disputed PR is waiting for community vote, see https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ labels Apr 3, 2024
@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 3, 2024

Setting this to "disputed" since @mkoeppe already said on #37387 that he is against this approach.

Feel free to remove that label if that is not what you meant.

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 3, 2024

@tornaria @kwankyu @mantepse @tobiasdiez feel free to have a look :)

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 3, 2024

I think this is a reasonable compromise so 馃憤

Alternatively: is the bot able to edit the description of the PR? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the link at the end of the description (and update it there every time)? This could be a more visible location for the link.

Maybe easier: is there an easy URL that will redirect to the latest version of the documentation for a given PR? Maybe this link could be added statically into the PR template?

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 3, 2024

Maybe easier: is there an easy URL that will redirect to the latest version of the documentation for a given PR? Maybe this link could be added statically into the PR template?

Yeah, actually that's probably even easier. Actually, no. We can't replace the PR number in the PR template easily. So, the two easy options to get fewer notifications than we currently get is:

  • Get a single notification (as we do here.)
  • Change the PR template to tell people to click on "Details" in the "Checks" section at the bottom. The drawback is that this does not let them see the (currently broken) "changes" easily and it might also not be immediately clear which version of the documentation they are looking at.

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 3, 2024

+1, please. Preferably I want to get 0 email notifications from github-actions[bot] for documentations.

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 3, 2024

Another option is to learn from how Gitpod does it. For example, see this Mathlib issue. They have a button that redirects to Gitpod, then (I think) Gitpod checks the referral header to see which repo & issue it comes from. We can do something similar, have an endpoint that takes the issue number and redirect to the built documentation.

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 3, 2024

Maybe easier: is there an easy URL that will redirect to the latest version of the documentation for a given PR? Maybe this link could be added statically into the PR template?

Yeah, actually that's probably even easier. Actually, no. We can't replace the PR number in the PR template easily.

Is it possible to have a static file in a single fixed URL that will read the PR from the referrer and redirect to the correct link? I assume this is what happens with the https://gitpod.io/from-referrer/ url in the mathlib issue.

With some luck, this can be done in javascript without server side involvement.

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 3, 2024

Here's a test: https://www.cmat.edu.uy/~tornaria/ref.html

Let's try the link to see if javascript can figure out the PR number.

EDIT: it seems we only get https://github.com/ as the referrer... not the full URL with the PR number.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 4, 2024

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 7dcf495; changes) is ready! 馃帀

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 4, 2024

I tested that this actually works on saraedum#2. (The link there is broken because there is no netlify configured.) But the notification updates correctly and looks correct to me.

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 4, 2024

I certainly want to wait for a week or so before I tally the votes here. But if you'd like to, I would appreciate a formal review of this PR.

@kwankyu
Copy link
Collaborator

kwankyu commented Apr 4, 2024

EDIT: it seems we only get https://github.com/ as the referrer... not the full URL with the PR number.

I get

Screenshot 2024-04-04 at 11 53 46鈥疨M

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 4, 2024

[referer approach]

Browsers (and their privacy extensions) can decide not to send the referer at all or mangle it. From my understanding of how this works, I think this has not much hope to lead to a robust solution.

@kwankyu
Copy link
Collaborator

kwankyu commented Apr 5, 2024

Of this change recreate: false, I am not sure.

Before this change, I can easily see that the doc build workflow is completed since the comment reappears at the bottom of the thread but others get annoyed by the useless notifications in github inbox (assuming they have email filters).

After this change, I would be annoyed for the need to look into the Checks list to see that the doc build workflow is completed but others won't receive the useless notifications in github inbox.

I vote -1 because I want this PR to get merged only if there are many people to care about the github inbox (I don't).

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 5, 2024

Before this change, I can easily see that the doc build workflow is completed since the comment reappears at the bottom of the thread but others get annoyed by the useless notifications in github inbox (assuming they have email filters).

After this change, I would be annoyed for the need to look into the Checks list to see that the doc build workflow is completed but others won't receive the useless notifications in github inbox.

Maybe it's possible to move up the "deploy documentation" so it's the first thing visible there ?

An advantage of the check box is that it will always be there as the last thing in the PR, while the comment by the bot gets lost if there are other comments after.

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 5, 2024

[referer approach]

Browsers (and their privacy extensions) can decide not to send the referer at all or mangle it. From my understanding of how this works, I think this has not much hope to lead to a robust solution.

Will it be reasonable to have a giant box just for the user to type the PR number in manually? I mean, if you click that "open PR" button or whatever, it'll open a new tab, so the GitHub PR page is still open, and you can copy the PR number over easily.

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 5, 2024

[referer approach]

Browsers (and their privacy extensions) can decide not to send the referer at all or mangle it. From my understanding of how this works, I think this has not much hope to lead to a robust solution.

Will it be reasonable to have a giant box just for the user to type the PR number in manually? I mean, if you click that "open PR" button or whatever, it'll open a new tab, so the GitHub PR page is still open, and you can copy the PR number over easily.

Maybe we can use the referrer url, which will work for most people (e.g. for @kwankyu as shown in #37740 (comment)). But when the referrer url is mangled (for people like me, using privacy plugins) show a box to let me input the PR number.

There's possibly some (mild) correlation between people that get annoyed by spam bots and people that use privacy plugins. I wouldn't mind at all that the link in the PR comment doesn't work for me without manual intervention, typing the PR number is nil compared to receiving lots of spam from the bot which hides relevant notifications.

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 5, 2024

That sounds great! Just to enlarge the sample size, referral doesn't show PR number for me.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Apr 7, 2024

+1 here

@orlitzky
Copy link
Contributor

orlitzky commented Apr 7, 2024

+1

This is a simple solution that eliminates most of the noise.

For what it's worth, I blocked these in my mail system to see how hard it would be. It's not terribly easy, and I'm the mail server administrator. The notifications come from the usual github address, with all of the same headers that accompany any other comment. To dig into the body using server-side filtering, you need the sieve body extension. Then of course you want to test it by filtering the messages into junk for a while before you discard them entirely. All of this takes time, multiplied by the apparently large number of users who hate these notifications.

In the future, I would remain open to any of the better solutions that have been proposed but not implemented yet.

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 7, 2024

@dimpase @orlitzky thanks for your feedback. This still needs review (I understand that a +1 does not count as a formal review so if you can review, maybe just "approve" to make this clear.)

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 8, 2024

Wait, so are we disabling the notifications without a replacement (e.g. the redirection button or whatever)?

@kwankyu
Copy link
Collaborator

kwankyu commented Apr 8, 2024

Please do counting of votes before status labelling. That's the rule for disputed PRs.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Apr 8, 2024

@kwankyu this vote counting is getting ludicrous. As far as I know, @mkoeppe does not get email notifications from GitHub - and such people must be disqualified from voting here, as their mailboxes don't get a email notification from the same PR just cause docs got rebuilt.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Apr 8, 2024

Wait, so are we disabling the notifications without a replacement (e.g. the redirection button or whatever)?

you'll get one notification, 1st time docs are/attempted to be built. You can revisit the PR if you want to see how it's going.

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 8, 2024

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

saraedum commented Apr 8, 2024

@kwankyu this vote counting is getting ludicrous.

@dimpase if you want to change the process, I believe that sage-devel is the appropriate place to discuss this.

such people must be disqualified from voting here

I strongly disagree with this. Everybody gets to vote.

@grhkm21
Copy link
Contributor

grhkm21 commented Apr 8, 2024

@tornaria i think mkoeppe is also -1, from one of the first comments. Maybe @mkoeppe can vote himself directly (I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 required though?)

@tornaria
Copy link
Contributor

tornaria commented Apr 8, 2024

@tornaria i think mkoeppe is also -1, from one of the first comments. Maybe @mkoeppe can vote himself directly (I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 required though?)

I had initially placed him on the -1 side. However, I couldn't find his vote on this PR. He was tagged in the first comment, and also this PR was mentioned in the other PR he was participating in, so I would say he was given reasonable notification.

The vote would still be 5 to 2, so it wouldn't make a difference.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Apr 8, 2024

As far as I know, @mkoeppe does not get email notifications from GitHub

@dimpase Well, how would you know this?

As a matter of fact, I do get the email notifications, and they are exactly what I use in my notification-driven workflow. I said this clearly in the original discussion - #37387 (comment)

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Apr 8, 2024

My vote is -1.

I have already explained clearly why in #37387 (comment): "This proposal is not suitable as a compromise -- because it completely ignores the use of this notification as a workflow management tool. #37387 (comment)"

@tobiasdiez
Copy link
Contributor

+1, people interested in getting notifications when the doc workflow is finished can subscribe via built-in github functionality (https://docs.github.com/en/actions/monitoring-and-troubleshooting-workflows/notifications-for-workflow-runs) or by quickly hacking together there own notification system using the public and easy-to-use github api (https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/workflow-runs?apiVersion=2022-11-28#about-workflow-runs-in-github-actions)

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Apr 11, 2024

by the way, these notifications appear to be broken, e.g. I got dimpase#6 (comment)
long before docs actually got built, and the link provded there gives 404

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Apr 11, 2024

As far as I know, @mkoeppe does not get email notifications from GitHub

@dimpase Well, how would you know this?

that's what you suggested in a discussion around #36803 - to disable email notifications (IIRC). This assumes that you eat your own dog food, certainly.

@saraedum
Copy link
Member Author

by the way, these notifications appear to be broken, e.g. I got dimpase#6 (comment) long before docs actually got built, and the link provded there gives 404

Most likely you do not have netlify credentials configured. When creating a PR into a fork where these are not configured, the notification gets created but is not functional. While that could be fixed, I don't really think it's relevant at the moment since I don't think anybody is creating PRs into other forks regularly.

@vbraun vbraun merged commit 98ae3ed into sagemath:develop Apr 12, 2024
14 of 17 checks passed
@mkoeppe mkoeppe added this to the sage-10.4 milestone Apr 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
disputed PR is waiting for community vote, see https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants