Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@superkhau
Copy link
Contributor

  • Remove sign CLA since CI already shows unsigned CLAs
  • Remove all tests must pass CI since we have to check each on a case by
    case basis anyways
  • Update example to include linking to the current repo using number
    sign (ie. Fix missing assert module #49 in addition to org/repo#49)

cc @bajtos @eddiemonge @strongloop/loopback-dev

- Remove sign CLA since CI already shows unsigned CLAs
- Remove all tests must pass CI since we have to check each on a case by
  case basis anyways
- Update example to include linking to the current repo using number
  sign (ie. #49 in addition to org/repo#49)
@superkhau superkhau self-assigned this Oct 19, 2016
@eddiemonge
Copy link

lgtm

@superkhau
Copy link
Contributor Author

@slnode test please

@superkhau superkhau merged commit 9cc473c into master Oct 20, 2016
@superkhau superkhau deleted the remove-redundant-items-in-pr-template branch October 20, 2016 00:21
superkhau added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2016
- Remove sign CLA since CI already shows unsigned CLAs
- Remove all tests must pass CI since we have to check each on a case by
  case basis anyways
- Update example to include linking to the current repo using number
  sign (ie. #49 in addition to org/repo#49)

Backport of #2877
superkhau added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2016
- Remove sign CLA since CI already shows unsigned CLAs
- Remove all tests must pass CI since we have to check each on a case by
  case basis anyways
- Update example to include linking to the current repo using number
  sign (ie. #49 in addition to org/repo#49)

Backport of #2877
@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Oct 20, 2016

IMO, this is going in a wrong direction :( Many contributors are not familiar with GitHub and its status checks. I don't want to repeat myself again and again to remind them.

Also the purpose of the checklist is to allow people to work on their patch incrementally, using checked/unchecked items as a way of communicating the status of the patch.

@superkhau Can we revert this pull request please?

In the future, I would appreciate if we allowed at least 24 hours before landing pull requests like this one.

@eddiemonge
Copy link

IMO, this is going in a wrong direction :( Many contributors are not familiar with GitHub and its status checks.

Many are going to submit the PR and not check back to see if the tests pass. Why make them check a box that will automatically have a checked box or not? That's like saying raise your hand to raise your hand.

I don't want to repeat myself again and again to remind them.

That will happen no matter what we do.

@superkhau
Copy link
Contributor Author

@superkhau Can we revert this pull request please?

Yes we can, but I still agree with @eddiemonge's comments/response -- did you use issue/PR templates from your day's at Yeoman?

IMO, this is going in a wrong direction :( Many contributors are not familiar with GitHub and its status checks...

I disagree, if they are not familiar with status checks and we expect them to use it, we need to make a page to educate them on loopback.io for "How to use status checks when contributing to LoopBack". Then we can point the finger there instead of burdening all the users who do know how to use status checks forever with checking a checkbox that is already checked by CI and already visible to the contributor.

Also the purpose of the checklist is to allow people to work on their patch incrementally, using checked/unchecked items as a way of communicating the status of the patch.

  • CLA signed
  • All CI builds are passing

Assuming they know how to use status checks (or we point them to the page aboves so they do know after reading), I don't see how these two bullets serve any purpose -- we need to verify these things during PR review anyways (why should the contributor be burdened to check another thing that we have to check as part of our PR review anyways?)

...a way of communicating the status of the patch.

I disagree with this too, they've already communicated their intent to submit a correct patch from the start. The other two bullets make sense because they may need reminders to add tests and make sure their "correct" code conforms to our style guide (and possibly a link to learn how to use status checks).

As for the incremental updates, they communicate the status by talking to us in comments/responses, not by checking the checkboxes later. For example, a simple UX:

  • CLA signed
    superkhau: Please sign the CLA.
    bajtos: @superkhau Signed. (then we go and check a checkbox? i'm already helping the user land so i know it's sign by looking at the status check MYSELF as the reviewer)
  • All CI builds are passing
    superkhau: Submits a patch (goes away, CI fails)
    bajtos: Can you fix blah CI is failing?
    superkhau: (push new changes) fixed
    bajtos: (checks status checks) green (goes check checkbox?).

Thoughts?

In the future, I would appreciate if we allowed at least 24 hours before landing pull requests like this one.

I agree with this one. 🙇‍♂️ I should've waited 24 hours since this is a flamewar topic. I'm gonna wait 24 hours this time for your response before reverting this time though.

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Oct 21, 2016

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree (see e.g. Node's PR template), but also don't waste everybody's time discussing the PR template. Let's stay with what we have in master now and move on. We can always made modifications later if we find out the current template does not serve us well enough.

@superkhau
Copy link
Contributor Author

We can always made modifications later if we find out the current template does not serve us well enough.

👍 for this, let's give it a shot and update iteratively.

bajtos added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2016
 * Need index on principalId for performance. (#2883) (#2884) (Simon Ho)
 * Remove redundant items in PR template (#2877) (#2878) (Simon Ho)
 * Refactor PR template based on feedback (#2865) (#2874) (Simon Ho)
 * Add pull request template (#2843) (#2862) (Simon Ho)
 * Fix description of updateAll response (Miroslav Bajtoš)
bajtos added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2016
 * Fix use-strict issue with connectors after merge (Loay)
 * Fix connector naming in strict mode (ebarault)
 * Add "returnOnlyRoleNames" option to Role.getRoles (Eric)
 * Update translation files (Candy)
 * Fix broken document for `upsertWithWhere` (Amir Jafarian)
 * Fix js doc for deleteAll event (Candy)
 * add allowArray to relations' create remoteMethod (David Cheung)
 * Remove workaround for default value (Loay)
 * Fix remote method example (Amir Jafarian)
 * Remove `example/context` (Amir Jafarian)
 * Turn on "no-unused-expressions" rule for eslint (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Update eslint to loopback config v5 (Loay)
 * Fix total calculation in example (Candy)
 * make test individually runable (David Cheung)
 * Add options to bulkUpdate (Kogulan Baskaran)
 * Fix context within listByPrincipalType role method (codyolsen)
 * Add Node v7 to Travis CI platforms (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Drop support for Node v0.10 and v0.12 (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Add templateFn option to User#verify() (Adrien Kiren)
 * Require verification after email change (Loay)
 * Update doc links (Candy)
 * adding check of string for case insensitive emails (Dhaval Trivedi)
 * Update test confirmation text in PR template (#2897) (Simon Ho)
 * allow batch create for persisted models (David Cheung)
 * Fix PR template to not link all PRs to #49 (#2887) (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Need index on principalId for performance. (#2883) (Simon Ho)
 * Remove redundant items in PR template (#2877) (Simon Ho)
 * Refactor PR template based on feedback (#2865) (Simon Ho)
 * Add pull request template (#2843) (Simon Ho)
 * Update README.md (Rand McKinney)
 * Reword ticking checkbox note in issue template (#2854) (Simon Ho)
 * Add how to tick checkbox in issue template (#2851) (Simon Ho)
 * Fix description of updateAll response (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Allow tokens with eternal TTL (value -1) (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Use GitHub issue templates (#2810) (Simon Ho)
 * Update ja and nl translation files (Candy)
 * Remove 3.0 DEVELOPING & RELEASE-NOTES (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Fix support for remote hooks returning a Promise (Tim van der Staaij)
 * Validate non-email property partial update (Loay)
 * Update release notes (Amir Jafarian)
 * Update translation files - round#2 (Candy)
 * Add license text (Candy)
 * Temporarily disable Karma tests on Windows CI (Miroslav Bajtoš)
ebarault pushed a commit to ebarault/loopback that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2016
 * Fix use-strict issue with connectors after merge (Loay)
 * Fix connector naming in strict mode (ebarault)
 * Add "returnOnlyRoleNames" option to Role.getRoles (Eric)
 * Update translation files (Candy)
 * Fix broken document for `upsertWithWhere` (Amir Jafarian)
 * Fix js doc for deleteAll event (Candy)
 * add allowArray to relations' create remoteMethod (David Cheung)
 * Remove workaround for default value (Loay)
 * Fix remote method example (Amir Jafarian)
 * Remove `example/context` (Amir Jafarian)
 * Turn on "no-unused-expressions" rule for eslint (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Update eslint to loopback config v5 (Loay)
 * Fix total calculation in example (Candy)
 * make test individually runable (David Cheung)
 * Add options to bulkUpdate (Kogulan Baskaran)
 * Fix context within listByPrincipalType role method (codyolsen)
 * Add Node v7 to Travis CI platforms (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Drop support for Node v0.10 and v0.12 (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Add templateFn option to User#verify() (Adrien Kiren)
 * Require verification after email change (Loay)
 * Update doc links (Candy)
 * adding check of string for case insensitive emails (Dhaval Trivedi)
 * Update test confirmation text in PR template (strongloop#2897) (Simon Ho)
 * allow batch create for persisted models (David Cheung)
 * Fix PR template to not link all PRs to strongloop#49 (strongloop#2887) (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Need index on principalId for performance. (strongloop#2883) (Simon Ho)
 * Remove redundant items in PR template (strongloop#2877) (Simon Ho)
 * Refactor PR template based on feedback (strongloop#2865) (Simon Ho)
 * Add pull request template (strongloop#2843) (Simon Ho)
 * Update README.md (Rand McKinney)
 * Reword ticking checkbox note in issue template (strongloop#2854) (Simon Ho)
 * Add how to tick checkbox in issue template (strongloop#2851) (Simon Ho)
 * Fix description of updateAll response (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Allow tokens with eternal TTL (value -1) (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Use GitHub issue templates (strongloop#2810) (Simon Ho)
 * Update ja and nl translation files (Candy)
 * Remove 3.0 DEVELOPING & RELEASE-NOTES (Miroslav Bajtoš)
 * Fix support for remote hooks returning a Promise (Tim van der Staaij)
 * Validate non-email property partial update (Loay)
 * Update release notes (Amir Jafarian)
 * Update translation files - round#2 (Candy)
 * Add license text (Candy)
 * Temporarily disable Karma tests on Windows CI (Miroslav Bajtoš)
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.

5 participants