Add script to remove duplicate issues on declarations repository #1115
Conversation
|
Example result: OpenTermsArchive/contrib-declarations#3499 |
Co-authored-by: Clément Biron <[email protected]>
| @@ -2,6 +2,14 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| All changes that impact users of this module are documented in this file, in the [Common Changelog](https://common-changelog.org) format with some additional specifications defined in the CONTRIBUTING file. This codebase adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html). | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Unreleased [minor] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say this is a no-release considering there is strictly no change in behavior exposed to reusers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered that initially, but if we ask our partners to update to the latest version to access this script, they won’t be able to do so if there’s no official release available.
scripts/reporter/duplicate/README.md
Outdated
| OTA_ENGINE_GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_token | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Configure the target repository in `config/development.json`: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it really have to be in
development? Or just in the environment that will be loaded at config loading time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could be in any config file
scripts/reporter/duplicate/index.js
Outdated
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| await octokit.request('PATCH /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{issue_number}', { /* eslint-disable-line no-await-in-loop */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we await? Couldn't this be done fully asynchronously?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could, but I find logs much easier to read when they’re sequential. Since we need to not send our requests in parallel to avoid hitting GitHub’s rate limit, I opted for a setup that maintains clear, readable output
scripts/reporter/duplicate/index.js
Outdated
| state: 'closed', | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Couldn't we use state_reason to avoid the following comment request? 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it is not what you think:
state_reason string or null
The reason for the state change. Ignored unless state is changed.
Can be one of: completed, not_planned, reopened, null
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could still set not_planned then 😉
scripts/reporter/duplicate/index.js
Outdated
|
|
||
| console.log(`\nDuplicate removal process completed; ${counter} issues closed`); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.log(`Failed to remove duplicate issues: ${error.stack}`); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| console.log(`Failed to remove duplicate issues: ${error.stack}`); | |
| console.log(`Failed to remove some duplicate issues: ${error.stack}`); |
scripts/reporter/duplicate/index.js
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| console.log(`\nDuplicate removal process completed; ${counter} issues closed`); | ||
| } catch (error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do a try / catch and exit instead of simply not catching any error, since we call the function from the main event loop anyway? 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of habit. But it can be removed.
Output example: