Description

hugovk

opened on Apr 12, 2022

Issue body actions

Re:

• https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/.github/workflows/stale.yml
• https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/workflows/stale.yml

The CLA [not] signed label handling has been removed because the new CLA bot doesn't use those labels, so it now won't close any stale PRs: python/cpython#91429.

What I wrote in #93 (comment) isn't accurate on two counts:

1. only-pr-labels doesn't restrict to processing PRs only, it overrides only-labels for PRs, and for issues it will use the only-labels default instead. Anyway, it doesn't matter because only-pr-labels was deleted in the PR.

2. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

---

Aside: One option is to also mark issues as stale, but that's another conversation. We should also figure out a way to reinstate closing old PRs that don't have the CLA signed (i.e. redo #93), that's also another conversation.

---

I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

days-before-stale: 30

into:

days-before-issue-stale: -1
days-before-pr-stale: 30

where:

If set to a negative number like -1, no issues or pull requests will be marked as stale automatically.
In that case, you can still add the stale label manually to mark as stale.

cc @erlend-aasland @ezio-melotti

Activity

1. erlend-aasland commented on Apr 12, 2022

   

   erlend-aasland

   on Apr 12, 2022

   More actions

   2. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

   I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

   days-before-stale: 30

   into:

   days-before-issue-stale: -1
   days-before-pr-stale: 30

   Yeah, I had a look at the docs myself, and that seems to be the correct change for this particular problem.

   Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?
2. ezio-melotti commented on Apr 12, 2022

   

   ezio-melotti

   on Apr 12, 2022

   Member

   More actions

   As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

   • pending
     • the issue/PR is invalid in its current state (e.g. not enough info, CLA not signed, etc.) and will automatically be closed after a fixed period unless the problem is addressed and the label removed
     • it can be set by both humans (e.g. on a new issue with not enough info) or bots/actions (e.g. CLA still not signed after a period of time) and it can be removed by both (bots for things like a now-signed CLA and humans for the other cases)
   • stale
     • the issue/PR has seen no activity for a certain period of time
     • it should be set automatically by bots/actions and removed automatically on action

   Would this work with the current workflow?

   My reasoning is that:

   • stale doesn't apply to new issues with not enough info, but we might want to close them automatically too
   • I think we shouldn't close issues/PRs automatically just because they are stale, but we can do it if a human set them to pending

   In theory we might get rid of stale altogether if pending is applied by bots/action automatically when the CLA is not signed after a certain period, and search queries can be used to search for issues that haven't been updated in a while (providing more flexiblity at the price of simplicity since you can't filter for label:stale anymore, but have to use updated:<2022-03-13)
3. hugovk commented on Apr 13, 2022

   

   hugovk

   on Apr 13, 2022

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

   Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

   Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

   As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

   ...

   Should we discuss this as part of a new issue or closing stale PRs?
4. hugovk commented on Apr 13, 2022

   

   hugovk

   on Apr 13, 2022

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

   Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

   Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

   -> #441

   Reacted by Erlend E. Aasland
5. ezio-melotti

   closed this as completedin cpython#91501on May 6, 2022

Issue actions