Create issue comments #2535

samcoe · 2020-12-02T19:43:16Z

This PR allows for commenting on issues. It is branched off of @Yuuki77's work in #2008. Thanks @Yuuki77 for getting this work started 🙇 . I left major design decisions/comments inline with the code.

One feature I would like to add in the future is showing the most recent comments in editor mode, to give the user context for their comment. I think having #2462 merged in would make that feature significantly easier to implement which is why I am going to hold off for now. If that gets merged in before this one, then I will take a pass at implementing it.

cc #517

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

samcoe · 2020-12-02T20:42:49Z

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

+		IO:         f.IOStreams,
+		HttpClient: f.HttpClient,
+		Config:     f.Config,
+		Edit: func(editorCommand string) (string, error) {


This pattern is necessary for testing purposes and copied from the gist commands.

mislav

This is looking great! Some suggestions on how we could simplify the interactivity around the command and its implementation

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

mislav · 2020-12-04T16:36:42Z

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

+		Message: "Where do you want to draft your comment?",
+		Options: []string{"In line", "Editor", "Web"},


I'm not sure if this survey prompt is useful. I'm imagining that, if our users were to write a comment interactively, they would appreciate if we launched a text editor immediately.

Would we consider --editor being implied (and removing it as an explicit flag) if --body and --web were not supplied? And then launching an editor directly without prompting, since the user already gave us an indication that they want to write a comment?

That would mean that we would only interface with the Survey library to show the Submit? step once the editor finishes.

I like this optimization, it makes this command work similar to git commit. I wonder if we would even want a Submit? prompt in that case. @ampinsk @vilmibm do you have any thoughts?

I think jumping straight into the editor from the prompt would be jarring, especially because it's very unlike the rest of gh to do so. I'd prefer to keep the design of this as is, but if you both feel strongly I'm open to discussing it! Curious if @vilmibm has thoughts.

I'm unsure about this and for that reason do want to ship it like this; i want to see how it feels and if we get feedback on it.

i think we're still establishing best practices around interactive modes and some inconsistency / extra verbosity might help us narrow down those practices.

I think jumping straight into the editor from the prompt would be jarring, especially because it's very unlike the rest of gh to do so.

Agreed that it might be jarring. But for a purpose like editing, where there is only one field to collect (as opposed to opening an issue or PR), I think that it could be something that we could get away with. However, if we were to also provide the Web option, then absolutely, the first prompt is in order.

My objection was mostly for providing the In line vs. Editor option, as I don't understand why users would choose the In line option (where neither readline nor terminal escape sequences are supported), over their full-featured editor?

The second thing that I believe can reduce friction is that we skip the additional [e] to launch editor prompt which follows the user's choice of Editor, and jump straight into editing instead:

? Where do you want to draft your comment? Editor ? Body [(e) to launch vim] <--- does anyone benefit from this?

I played around with this a bit and decided to keep the input survey but removed the In line option. The main reason was because survey does not use readline and does not handle terminal escape sequences well, this made the overall editing experience poor. If users want to supply the body message in line they will need to use the --body flag.

I agree that the second prompt to open the editor is unnecessary and will see if I can remove it.

api/queries_issue.go

Oshimarr36 · 2021-01-05T12:21:03Z

Experience

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

shindere · 2021-01-05T19:27:13Z

Sam (2021/01/05 10:46 -0800):

@samcoe commented on this pull request. > + if opts.Interactive { + cs := opts.IO.ColorScheme() + fmt.Fprint(opts.IO.Out, cs.GreenBold("?")) + fmt.Fprint(opts.IO.Out, cs.Bold(" Body ")) + fmt.Fprint(opts.IO.Out, cs.Cyan("<Received>\n")) + } I ended up removing the extra survey that prompts the user to enter "e" to open their editor but that also removed the confirmation output. I liked the little confirmation that `gh` had received the body from the editor so I recreated it here, keeping the same survey style.

What about making this ocnfirmation optional so that those who like it can enable it and the others can disable it?

mislav

This works and looks great! Good job 🌟

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

api/queries_comments.go

mislav · 2021-01-08T17:08:41Z

api/queries_comments.go

 	return &Comments{Nodes: comments, TotalCount: len(comments)}, nil
 }
+
+func CommentCreate(client *Client, repoHost string, params map[string]string) (string, error) {


If this method is only to be used in pkg/cmd/issue and pkg/cmd/pr packages, consider placing it in pkg/cmd/issue/shared/http.go instead. I feel like we should shrink down the API package to only have generic API functionality, and specific queries are implemented in individual packages that need them.

I'd like to think about this more so I am going to leave it in place for this PR and then address it when working on commenting for PRs.

mislav · 2021-01-08T17:09:55Z

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

+		EditSurvey:          editSurvey(f.Config, f.IOStreams),
+		InputTypeSurvey:     inputTypeSurvey,
+		ConfirmSubmitSurvey: confirmSubmitSurvey,
+		OpenInBrowser:       utils.OpenInBrowser,


This is cool! 🏆

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go

mislav

Fantastic. Thank you for the updates! 🌟

just1a-person

GitHub CLI comment test

just1a-person · 2021-01-13T07:42:59Z

Wait! I cannot comment normally? I have to review it?

mislav · 2021-01-13T16:09:37Z

@itsme-alan Please test CLI functionality in a separate repo, and if you find a bug in merged functionality, please open an issue.

Note that this PR only advertises functionality to comment on Issues; to comment on Pull Requests (this is separate from leaving a review comment, which is already possible) some additional changes might be required. 🙇

samcoe self-assigned this Dec 2, 2020

samcoe force-pushed the create-comments branch from b589f1a to 3d3815e Compare December 2, 2020 19:44

samcoe commented Dec 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

samcoe commented Dec 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

samcoe commented Dec 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

samcoe marked this pull request as ready for review December 2, 2020 20:43

samcoe force-pushed the create-comments branch 2 times, most recently from 1a2402d to df399e3 Compare December 3, 2020 18:49

mislav suggested changes Dec 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

Kropo7ov approved these changes Dec 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

mislav mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2020

Show entire comment thread in issue/pr view #1009

Closed

samcoe force-pushed the create-comments branch from 4b56877 to 04247bf Compare January 5, 2021 01:23

Yuki Osaki and others added 5 commits January 5, 2021 10:35

Comment on issues from editor

8ef2bb4

fix linter issue

338bf1d

Modify issue commenting to adhere to designs and add tests

f862123

Address PR comments

1fc8b66

Move CreateComment mutation

de73b16

samcoe force-pushed the create-comments branch from 04247bf to de73b16 Compare January 5, 2021 18:41

samcoe commented Jan 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

pkg/cmd/issue/comment/comment.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Make comment command easier to test

155507d

samcoe force-pushed the create-comments branch from b7dd4b1 to 155507d Compare January 5, 2021 23:14

samcoe requested review from ampinsk, mislav and vilmibm January 6, 2021 18:27

mislav suggested changes Jan 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

Address PR comments

723e9e3

samcoe requested a review from mislav January 11, 2021 21:57

mislav approved these changes Jan 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

samcoe merged commit b0ae09e into trunk Jan 12, 2021

samcoe deleted the create-comments branch January 12, 2021 19:24

just1a-person reviewed Jan 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

samcoe mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2021

Comment on pull requests #2776

Merged

		Message: "Where do you want to draft your comment?",
		Options: []string{"In line", "Editor", "Web"},

Uh oh!

Create issue comments #2535

Create issue comments #2535

Uh oh!

Conversation

samcoe commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Oshimarr36 commented Jan 5, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shindere commented Jan 5, 2021 via email

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

just1a-person left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

just1a-person commented Jan 13, 2021

Uh oh!

mislav commented Jan 13, 2021

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

samcoe commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

Loading