Skip to content

Stale action should not process issues #439

Closed
python/cpython
#91501
Closed
Stale action should not process issues#439
python/cpython
#91501

Description

@hugovk
hugovk
opened on Apr 12, 2022

Re:

The CLA [not] signed label handling has been removed because the new CLA bot doesn't use those labels, so it now won't close any stale PRs: python/cpython#91429.

What I wrote in #93 (comment) isn't accurate on two counts:

  1. only-pr-labels doesn't restrict to processing PRs only, it overrides only-labels for PRs, and for issues it will use the only-labels default instead. Anyway, it doesn't matter because only-pr-labels was deleted in the PR.

  2. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

Aside: One option is to also mark issues as stale, but that's another conversation. We should also figure out a way to reinstate closing old PRs that don't have the CLA signed (i.e. redo #93), that's also another conversation.

I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

days-before-stale: 30

into:

days-before-issue-stale: -1
days-before-pr-stale: 30

where:

If set to a negative number like -1, no issues or pull requests will be marked as stale automatically.
In that case, you can still add the stale label manually to mark as stale.

cc @erlend-aasland @ezio-melotti

Activity

  1. erlend-aasland commented on Apr 12, 2022

    @erlend-aasland
    erlend-aasland
    on Apr 12, 2022
    1. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

    I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

    days-before-stale: 30

    into:

    days-before-issue-stale: -1
days-before-pr-stale: 30

    Yeah, I had a look at the docs myself, and that seems to be the correct change for this particular problem.

    Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

  2. ezio-melotti commented on Apr 12, 2022

    @ezio-melotti
    ezio-melotti
    on Apr 12, 2022
    Member

    As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

    • pending
      • the issue/PR is invalid in its current state (e.g. not enough info, CLA not signed, etc.) and will automatically be closed after a fixed period unless the problem is addressed and the label removed
      • it can be set by both humans (e.g. on a new issue with not enough info) or bots/actions (e.g. CLA still not signed after a period of time) and it can be removed by both (bots for things like a now-signed CLA and humans for the other cases)
    • stale
      • the issue/PR has seen no activity for a certain period of time
      • it should be set automatically by bots/actions and removed automatically on action

    Would this work with the current workflow?

    My reasoning is that:

    • stale doesn't apply to new issues with not enough info, but we might want to close them automatically too
    • I think we shouldn't close issues/PRs automatically just because they are stale, but we can do it if a human set them to pending

    In theory we might get rid of stale altogether if pending is applied by bots/action automatically when the CLA is not signed after a certain period, and search queries can be used to search for issues that haven't been updated in a while (providing more flexiblity at the price of simplicity since you can't filter for label:stale anymore, but have to use updated:<2022-03-13)

  3. hugovk commented on Apr 13, 2022

    @hugovk
    hugovk
    on Apr 13, 2022
    MemberAuthor

    This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

    Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

    Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

    As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

    ...

    Should we discuss this as part of a new issue or closing stale PRs?

  4. hugovk commented on Apr 13, 2022

    @hugovk
    hugovk
    on Apr 13, 2022
    MemberAuthor

    This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

    Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

    Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

    -> #441

  5. ezio-melotti
    closed this as completedin cpython#91501on May 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions