a8n: failed creating PRs because 'assignee' doesn't exist

[attfarhan]

• Sourcegraph version:
• Platform information:

Steps to reproduce

1. Log into GitHub with the sd9 account
2. Follow the instructions at https://docs.sourcegraph.com/user/automation#creating-a-campaign-from-a-set-of-patches, using the following actions file:

{
  "scopeQuery": "repo:go-* -repohasfile:INSTALL.md -repo:stripe-go",
  "steps": [
    {
      "type": "command",
      "args": ["sh", "-c", "echo '# Installation' > INSTALL.md"]
    },
    {
      "type": "docker",
      "dockerfile": "FROM alpine:3 \n CMD find /work -iname '*.md' -type f | xargs -n 1 sed -i s/this/that/g"
    },
    {
      "type": "docker",
      "image": "golang:1.13-alpine",
      "args": ["go", "fix", "/work/..."]
    }
  ]
}

Expected behavior:

PRs would be created in relevant repos. I suspect this error may be due to the particular repos being modified being on our GHE instance.

Actual behavior:

The PRs don't get created and fail with 'field assignee does not exist' error in screenshot above.

[mrnugget]

@tsenart @ryanslade Is it possible that GitHub's and GHE's GraphQL API's differ that much?

[mrnugget]

The problem is our version of GHE. We're currently on 2.17.2 from June 19, 2019. Current version is 2.19.6 (or 2.17.17 for 2.17.x).

The error we're seeing here is because the assignee field was only added one month after the release of 2.17.2: https://developer.github.com/v4/changelog/2019-07-19-schema-changes/

The previous user field was deprecated on 2020-01-01.

I think we have two options:

1. Decide that we don't deprecate older/deprecated versions of the GraphQL
2. Be backwards compatible by using introspection features of the GraphQL API to decide which fields to query.

I think we should go with (1) for now, because (2) sounds simple but can easily be just the tip of the iceberg: if there are signifcant changes between API versions we need to also accomodate for that in our Go structures etc. and can't just "alias" old/deprecated fields to their new names etc.

What do you think @christinaforney @sqs?

[mrnugget]

I'm closing this because the customers that are using and testing Automation at the moment do not use outdated GHE versions and I personally think that building in backwards-compatible support for multiple code hosts is wasted effort at the moment.