Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

✨ add utility to create git issues on provider repo #9110

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2024
Merged

✨ add utility to create git issues on provider repo #9110

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2024

Conversation

nawazkh
Copy link
Member

@nawazkh nawazkh commented Aug 2, 2023

What this PR does / why we need it:

  • This PR adds a utility to create git issues in bulk.
  • It is intended to update providers that there is a new minor release candidate ready for testing.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 2, 2023
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 2, 2023
@nawazkh nawazkh marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2023 23:41
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 2, 2023
@nawazkh
Copy link
Member Author

nawazkh commented Aug 2, 2023

/cc @furkatgofurov7 @g-gaston
I created and used this utility in the release-1.5 cycle to create git issues across providers.
We could use this in the present release-1.6 cycle, also modify it to our likes and needs.
What do you think about it?

killianmuldoon
killianmuldoon reviewed Aug 3, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@killianmuldoon killianmuldoon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this as a util as the task is pretty repetitive, but I would prefer if this was really CAPI specific if we're to include it in the repo.

Could we:

  1. Make the list of repos a set of go const
  2. Hardcode the template MD in go code too.
  3. Move this to tools/internal

If you want to add options to supply your own list of repos and or template I'm fine with that too - but I would just prefer not to end up supporting a generic github issue creation tool in this repo.

furkatgofurov7
furkatgofurov7 reviewed Aug 3, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@furkatgofurov7 furkatgofurov7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @nawazkh, it looks nice and seems to be a handy tool to use, few concerns:

  • we need to always update contents of issue_body.md and repos.txt as we go even if we move it to go code as suggested by @killianmuldoon
  • maybe there a chance we could make it to run as GH action?

hack/tools/update_providers/Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@nawazkh

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@nawazkh nawazkh force-pushed the create_provider_issues branch 4 times, most recently from aa09895 to 89cd79b Compare August 9, 2023 06:21
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member

I would really prefer not running this tool in a GitHub action. What is the need for running this in a GitHub action? How often are we planning to run this tool?

@furkatgofurov7
Copy link
Member

@kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-release-team

@nawazkh
Copy link
Member Author

nawazkh commented Aug 10, 2023 •
edited
Loading

I would really prefer not to run this tool in a GitHub action. What is the need for running this in a GitHub action? How often are we planning to run this tool?

I am inclined not to run this tool via Github action as well since this is tool will be run once a release cycle. But I am open to ideas :)

@sbueringer
Copy link
Member

sbueringer commented Aug 14, 2023 •
edited
Loading

If we only run this tool once per release, let's please not run it as a GitHub action. I think it's not worth the maintenance effort

killianmuldoon
killianmuldoon reviewed Aug 14, 2023
View reviewed changes
Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
killianmuldoon
killianmuldoon reviewed Aug 14, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@killianmuldoon killianmuldoon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking pretty good - just a couple of open suggestions.

Some additional high-level things:

  • Could you add the full docs for running this to the release tasks?
  • Could you move it to hack/tools/internal
  • Is there a way to pass in the tag that would allow the issue to be automatically templated?
  • Similarly it would be good if we had a way to programatically retrieve the release schedule. - We might not need the full release schedule here either - maybe just the final e.g. 1.6.0 release date?

I think the above will make the tool easier to use and much less prone to mistakes.

Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
hack/tools/update_providers/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@killianmuldoon
Copy link
Contributor

Also agreed that there's no need for this to be part of a github action.

@nawazkh
Copy link
Member Author

nawazkh commented Dec 27, 2023

Please take a look :)
/cc @sbueringer

@sbueringer
Copy link
Member

sbueringer commented Jan 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Sorry don't have the bandwidth, I have to prioritize. But feel free to go ahead if you have enough reviews / the release team is happy with it

@g-gaston
Copy link
Contributor

g-gaston commented Jan 2, 2024

/lgtm
let's ship this :)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 2, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8d07a9163ad6db345ec5a7dd8727477a2e3ab7c1

furkatgofurov7
furkatgofurov7 suggested changes Jan 2, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@furkatgofurov7 furkatgofurov7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, except an outdated note

hack/tools/release/internal/update_providers/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2024
@willie-yao
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8f25b798ef584aae2cdf74cb526cc05d89493e79

@nawazkh
add Go utility on generating git issues at provider repos
9863869 
- get key details of the issue from the env variables
- updated README.md
- updated release-tasks.md
- move the util to hack/tools/release/internal

List of provieders:
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-addon-provider-helm",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-azure",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-cloudstack",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-digitalocean",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-gcp",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-kubemark",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-kubevirt",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-ibmcloud",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-nested",
		"oracle/cluster-api-provider-oci",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-openstack",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-operator",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-packet",
		"kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-vsphere",
		"metal3-io/cluster-api-provider-metal3",
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 24, 2024
@willie-yao
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 24, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 7e07cec319c503cc0d1c1a6610fb8182cb2d1a67

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini, furkatgofurov7

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 27, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 6b361e4 into kubernetes-sigs:main Feb 27, 2024
22 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.7 milestone Feb 27, 2024
@nawazkh nawazkh deleted the create_provider_issues branch February 28, 2024 17:44
@typeid
Copy link
Contributor

typeid commented Apr 8, 2024

/area release

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the area/release Issues or PRs related to releasing label Apr 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@furkatgofurov7 furkatgofurov7 furkatgofurov7 approved these changes

@enxebre enxebre Awaiting requested review from enxebre

@sbueringer sbueringer Awaiting requested review from sbueringer

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini Awaiting requested review from fabriziopandini

@willie-yao willie-yao Awaiting requested review from willie-yao

@killianmuldoon killianmuldoon Awaiting requested review from killianmuldoon

@g-gaston g-gaston Awaiting requested review from g-gaston

Assignees

@fabriziopandini fabriziopandini

@g-gaston g-gaston

@furkatgofurov7 furkatgofurov7

@willie-yao willie-yao

Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/release Issues or PRs related to releasing cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
CAPI v1.7 release improvement tasks
Status: Done
Milestone
v1.7
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
9 participants
@nawazkh @k8s-ci-robot @sbueringer @furkatgofurov7 @killianmuldoon @willie-yao @g-gaston @fabriziopandini @typeid