There are too many bot comments

[domenic]

Opening a pull request will generate the following:

1. An edit to your original post advertising Reviewable (see #5590)
2. A notification that the tests are available on w3c-test.org. (This also appears to get re-posted after every push.)
3. wpt-pr-bot notifying reviewers
4. A notification that lint passed
5. A post with Firefox results
6. A post with Chrome results
7. A post telling me about code coverage (maybe this is testing harness coverage or something!?)

Of these, only 3, 5, and 6 are valuable.

3 could be eliminated by using GitHub's request-a-review feature.

2 is redundant with 5 and 6, but if people think getting it in a couple minutes before 5 and 6 hit is valuable, then it could edit the original post instead.

1, 4, and 7 are completely useless and spammy.

A workaround for 7 is that you can block the @codecov-io GitHub user, but you cannot use the same workaround for others, as blocking @wpt-pr-bot prevents you from being asked for reviews and blocking @w3c-bots prevents you from seeing 5 and 6.

[zcorpan]

@gsnedders @jgraham can the linter and codecov things only comment if they have something useful to say? i.e. don't add a new comment saying "lint passed" or "code coverage not changed". (I'm assuming the code coverage thing can sometimes have something useful to say, but I haven't seen anything so far, and I don't know what it does...)

[annevk]

@zcorpan yeah, those two are being addressed. I think code coverage is already addressed, but you might need to rebase first.

[tobie]

3 could be eliminated by using GitHub's request-a-review feature.

Agreed. I've offered to do that a bunch of times already, but @jgraham is against. Happy to fix it when there's consensus to do so (it should be a trivial change).

[gsnedders]

3 could be eliminated by using GitHub's request-a-review feature.

The problem with this is you don't get a notification for it, and unless you're regularly clicking through to https://github.com/pulls/review-requested you won't notice anything new.

[tobie]

Really? That's not my experience of it (iirc) nor what the doc says. Am I missing something?

[domenic]

The problem with this is you don't get a notification for it,

That's not true? At least you get an email for it. My inbox has, for example:

@annevk requested your review on: whatwg/infra#118 Define insert for lists.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[gsnedders]

Mea culpa. I was sure I'd never got any notification, but maybe I'm just not paying enough attention. And I never look at my GitHub email. :)

[tobie]

Is there a plan to address this? This noise hurts a lot more than it helps at this point. It would be nice if we could have a concerted effort not to spam the hell out of the PR threads.

A pattern that works really well that I use in pr-preview is to add links in the OP instead of adding a new comment. E.g.: the preview and diff links at the bottom of whatwg/webidl#323 (comment).

I'll play my part and fix wpt-pr-bot to use the review tool as soon as I can find the time to do so.

/cc @jgraham, @sideshowbarker, @RByers, @plehegar, @Ms2ger et al.

[tobie]

(1) should mostly be fixed now (@wpt-pr-bot just removes the banner except when the PR touches the tools directory).

Will fix (3) next.

The rest isn't in my hands. :)

[domenic]

Browsing recent PRs, (7) and (4) appear possibly fixed, although I didn't see the commits that did it; maybe those services are just temporarily broken.

[tobie]

Oh, I still get (7), it's just really slow.

[tobie]

Fixed (3).

[gsnedders]

@domenic (7) is a030379; (4) is w3c/prbuildbot@0225fd3

[sideshowbarker]

2. A notification that the tests are available on w3c-test.org. (This also appears to get re-posted after every push.)
2 is redundant with 5 and 6, but if people think getting it in a couple minutes before 5 and 6 hit is valuable, then it could edit the original post instead.

With w3c/github_sync@a8218c3 merged and pushed to the webhook location on w3c-test.org, that notification is now gone (completely)

[annevk]

Thanks all, great improvements!

[tobie]

Additionally, it would be great to remove those bot comments when they're not relevant to the changes.

For example, doc changes get the stability bots and code cov comments. That adds a lot of noise and confusion, especially if the contributor is new.

[gsnedders]

@tobie they shouldn't get code coverage comments since a few weeks ago (thought I think jgraham said we might not get code coverage comments at all now, oops)

[tobie]

@gsnedders mmm, so I was pretty sure I saw the code coverage comment in a particular pull request, but I might have mixed it up with an older pull request. Apologies.

[bobholt]

The remaining points from the original issue are the browser-by-browser test results. I'm putting together a system to consolidate those into a single comment.

[RByers]

@bobholt this is now fully in place, right? Can we call this fixed?

[bobholt]

@RByers: not quite. There's a bug that appears to be a race condition that causes the new system to occasionally post 3 comments to a PR before it starts updating the original comment. I'm working on that now.

[RByers]

Ok, thanks for the update!

[bobholt]

This has been resolved.