Skip to content

fix(icr): workflow changes #7827

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 4, 2025
Merged

fix(icr): workflow changes #7827

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 4, 2025

Conversation

avivkeller
Copy link
Member

Per the discussions

@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 2, 2025 13:27
@avivkeller avivkeller requested a review from a team as a code owner June 2, 2025 13:27
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jun 2, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview Jun 3, 2025 1:08pm

Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR refactors the workflow for identifying inactive collaborators and updating the corresponding GitHub issue. Key changes include updating the cron schedule for the workflow, introducing a helper function to check for existing open issues, and renaming the issue creation function to only create a new issue instead of updating an existing one.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
.github/workflows/find-inactive-collaborators.yml Updated cron schedule from a weekly run to a monthly run based on intent.
.github/scripts/report-inactive-collaborators.mjs Added a helper to check for open issues and refactored the issue creation logic.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

.github/workflows/find-inactive-collaborators.yml:5

  • The cron schedule has been updated from a weekly run to a monthly run; please ensure this change is intentional and the comment accurately reflects the new schedule.
    - cron: '0 0 1 * *' # Runs at 00:00 UTC on the 1st day of every month

.github/scripts/report-inactive-collaborators.mjs:100

  • Renaming 'createOrUpdateIssue' to 'createIssue' removes the capability to update an existing issue, changing the workflow's behavior; verify that creating a new issue without updating an existing one is the intended approach.
async function createIssue(github, context, report) {

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.47%. Comparing base (c11af00) to head (c42c044).
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7827      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.48%   75.47%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         101      101              
  Lines        8309     8309              
  Branches      218      218              
==========================================
- Hits         6272     6271       -1     
- Misses       2035     2036       +1     
  Partials        2        2              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@AugustinMauroy AugustinMauroy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGMT !

Copy link
Member

@mikeesto mikeesto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just thinking about @aymen94 's #7826 (comment) . This addition looks like it is checking whether someone has authored an issue or PR, but not whether they have reviewed. It might be nice to capture this too. Actually, I would say it's more useful to capture this engagement instead of whether they have opened an issue

It could be done by forming a query like this:

const query = `type:pr repo:nodejs/nodejs.org reviewed-by:${username} updated:>=${cutoffDate}`;
 
 const { data: searchResult } = await github.request("GET /search/issues", {
      q: query,
      per_page: 1,
      advanced_search: true,
    });

Signed-off-by: Aviv Keller <me@aviv.sh>
Copy link
Member

@mikeesto mikeesto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks

@avivkeller avivkeller added the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jun 4, 2025
@avivkeller avivkeller enabled auto-merge June 4, 2025 10:23
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jun 4, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 4, 2025

Lighthouse Results

URL Performance Accessibility Best Practices SEO Report
/en 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 91 🔗
/en/about 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟠 82 🔗
/en/about/previous-releases 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟠 83 🔗
/en/download 🟢 95 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 91 🔗
/en/blog 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 96 🟢 92 🔗

@avivkeller avivkeller added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 4, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 642d5d6 Jun 4, 2025
15 checks passed
@avivkeller avivkeller deleted the fix/icr branch June 4, 2025 10:33
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants