redhat-plumbers-in-action / advanced-issue-labeler Goto Github PK

This issue lists Renovate updates and detected dependencies. Read the Dependency Dashboard docs to learn more.

Awaiting Schedule

These updates are awaiting their schedule. Click on a checkbox to get an update now.

• chore(deps): update dependency @types/node to v18.19.10 (main)
• chore(deps): update dependency eslint-plugin-prettier to v5.1.3 (main)
• chore(deps): update dependency prettier to v3.2.4 (main)
• chore(deps): update dependency typescript to v5.3.3 (main)
• chore(deps): update typescript-eslint monorepo to v6.19.1 (main) (@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin, @typescript-eslint/parser)
• chore(deps): update yarn to v3.7.0 (main)
• fix(deps): update dependency @octokit/core to v5.1.0 (main)
• chore(deps): update actions/setup-node action to v4 (main)
• chore(deps): update actions/upload-artifact action to v4 (main)
• chore(deps): update dependency @types/node to v20 (main)
• chore(deps): update github/codeql-action action to v3 (main)
• chore(deps): update vitest monorepo to v1 (main) (major) (@vitest/coverage-v8, vitest)
• chore(deps): update yarn to v4 (main)
• chore(deps): update dependency ts-node to v10.9.2 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency @types/node to v18.19.10 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency eslint to v8.56.0 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency eslint-plugin-prettier to v5.1.3 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency prettier to v3.2.4 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency typescript to v5.3.3 (node16)
• chore(deps): update typescript-eslint monorepo to v6.19.1 (node16) (@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin, @typescript-eslint/parser)
• chore(deps): update yarn to v3.7.0 (node16)
• fix(deps): update dependency @octokit/core to v5.1.0 (node16)
• chore(deps): update actions/setup-node action to v4 (node16)
• chore(deps): update actions/upload-artifact action to v4 (node16)
• chore(deps): update dependency @types/node to v20 (node16)
• chore(deps): update github/codeql-action action to v3 (node16)
• chore(deps): update vitest monorepo to v1 (node16) (major) (@vitest/coverage-v8, vitest)
• chore(deps): update yarn to v4 (node16)

Detected dependencies

• Check this box to trigger a request for Renovate to run again on this repository

Type of issue

Bug Report

Description

No response

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Type of issue

Bug Report

Description

I had encountered multiple occasions when labels were not set when using policy-free configuration:

• bmunkholm/Test#35
• https://github.com/jamacku/win11React/issues/3

##[debug]Evaluating condition for step: 'Set labels based on browsers field'
##[debug]Evaluating: success()
##[debug]Evaluating success:
##[debug]=> true
##[debug]Result: true
##[debug]Starting: Set labels based on browsers field
##[debug]Loading inputs
##[debug]Evaluating: steps.issue-parser.outputs.jsonString
##[debug]Evaluating Index:
##[debug]..Evaluating Index:
##[debug]....Evaluating Index:
##[debug]......Evaluating steps:
##[debug]......=> Object
##[debug]......Evaluating String:
##[debug]......=> 'issue-parser'
##[debug]....=> Object
##[debug]....Evaluating String:
##[debug]....=> 'outputs'
##[debug]..=> Object
##[debug]..Evaluating String:
##[debug]..=> 'jsonString'
##[debug]=> '{
##[debug]  "what-happened": "A bug happened!",
##[debug]  "Reproduce": "reproduce!",
##[debug]  "browsers": "Microsoft Edge"
##[debug]}'
##[debug]Result: '{
##[debug]  "what-happened": "A bug happened!",
##[debug]  "Reproduce": "reproduce!",
##[debug]  "browsers": "Microsoft Edge"
##[debug]}'
##[debug]Evaluating: secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN
##[debug]Evaluating Index:
##[debug]..Evaluating secrets:
##[debug]..=> Object
##[debug]..Evaluating String:
##[debug]..=> 'GITHUB_TOKEN'
##[debug]=> '***'
##[debug]Result: '***'
##[debug]Loading env
Run redhat-plumbers-in-action/advanced-issue-labeler@v2
  with:
    issue-form: {
    "what-happened": "A bug happened!",
    "Reproduce": "reproduce!",
    "browsers": "Microsoft Edge"
  }
    section: browsers
    block-list: Other Browser
  
    token: ***
##[debug]{ property: _inputs.template, value: , notes: [object Object]
##[debug]Node Action run completed with exit code 0
##[debug]Finishing: Set labels based on browsers field

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

They are similar to Issue Forms, just for GitHub Discussions.

Announced on GitHub Blog - https://github.blog/changelog/2023-02-03-category-forms-on-github-discussions/

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

Currently, this app cannot be used on GitHub enterprise versions which are self hosted, because the Base API URL is set to the default API of github.com

As GitHub Enterprise is self-hosted the API URL is different.

Describe the solution you'd like

A solution would be to create a configuration option for the API URL as a not required field which the default would be github api if not specified.

I would like to be assigned to this issue

Recently, GA gained support for job summaries which might serve as a nice way to visualise the outcome of the labeling process.

See: https://github.blog/2022-05-09-supercharging-github-actions-with-job-summaries/

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

Let's work on increasing test coverage to ensure everything works correctly.

Describe the solution you'd like

Long term goal would be to have the following:

• e2e tests
• integration tests
• unit tests coverage

Type of issue

other

Description

No response

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Something like in: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck

Add overview and document all options with examples.

Type of issue

Bug Report

Description

We would like to use this feature, but somehow we are not able to make it run even if we simply follow the example in the readme, the integration Lightning-AI/pytorch-lightning#17484 and the error:

with:
    issue-form: {
    "bug_description": "test",
    "versions": "ver: 1.6.x",
    "how_to_reproduce_the_bug": "",
    "error_messages_and_logs": "```\r\n# Error messages and logs here please\r\n```",
    "environment": "<details>\r\n  <summary>Current environment</summary>\n\n```\r\n#- Lightning Component (e.g. Trainer, LightningModule, LightningApp, LightningWork, LightningFlow):\r\n#- PyTorch Lightning Version (e.g., 1.5.0):\r\n#- Lightning App Version (e.g., 0.5.2):\r\n#- PyTorch Version (e.g., 2.0):\r\n#- Python version (e.g., [3](https://github.com/Lightning-AI/lightning/actions/runs/4822458653/jobs/8589717538#step:4:3).[9](https://github.com/Lightning-AI/lightning/actions/runs/4822458653/jobs/8589717538#step:4:9)):\r\n#- OS (e.g., Linux):\r\n#- CUDA/cuDNN version:\r\n#- GPU models and configuration:\r\n#- How you installed Lightning(`conda`, `pip`, source):\r\n#- Running environment of LightningApp (e.g. local, cloud):\r\n```\n\n</details>",
    "more_info": ""
  }
    section: versions
    token: ***
Error: , versions, undefined | , versions, undefined
Error: undefined, undefined,  | , versions, undefined
Error: An instance of Labeler has failed the validation:
 - property _inputs._blockList has failed the following constraints: minLength

The failing run is https://github.com/Lightning-AI/lightning/actions/runs/4822458653/jobs/8589717538

Also, it is confusing as the step is 🟢 even if it fails inside

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

No response

Describe the solution you'd like

config-path

Path to a configuration file.

• default value: .github/advanced-issue-labeler.yml
• requirements: optional

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

As discussed in systemd/systemd#23968 (comment) it would be useful to be able to mark issues that bypassed issue form.

/cc @evverx

Describe the solution you'd like

Introduce new optional input that would take name of label, which would be set when issue forms were bypassed.

# ...

mark-non-issue-forms-issues:
  required: false
  default: ''
  description: Name of label that will be set when issue form was bypassed by using `Create and empty issue` or using some other way.

# ...

Type of issue

Feature Request

Description

Security guidelines provided by GitHub: Security hardening for GitHub Actions

Describe the solution you'd like

Let's review the document from GitHub regarding GitHub Actions and security. And make Advanced Issue Labeler more secure!

Security is a long-term goal, not one of, so it would be great to have some ci check or checkbox in the Pull Request template to ensure that when reviewing new code, we comply with best security policies and guidelines.