Adding checkboxes and updating codeowners #156
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for epirhandbook ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for euphonious-melomakarona-1c9abb ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for erh-quarto ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
| env: | ||
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| # Get the PR number for the translation branch | ||
| PR_NUMBER=$(gh pr list --base main --json number --jq ".[] | select(.headRefName == \"$TRANSLATION_BRANCH\") | .number") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems you have removed the command to automate the creation of PRs for each language branch, but you run the command to get the PR_NUMBER for the translation branch. As a result, I think I got an error here @robcrystalornelas @nsbatra
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also @robcrystalornelas, I dont have much experience on how to setup a testing system, but what I usually do is to create a separate en branch, implement changes to trigger the Action. I made some modifications in my test repo then this Action work, but the checkbox for the commit doesn't render well. Also if more commits are pushed into en branch, the PR from language versions couldn't update
|
@ntluong95 I'm closing out this PR since I think you've already incorporated these changes on the |
👋🏻 I'm opening up this PR, so that we can work on changes to an action file and the codeowners file described in #155
🔎 The details
The action file
branchrather than onPRopen/reopen/sync.NEW_BRANCHtoTRANSLATION_BRANCHEnglishbranch and add those as markdown formatted checkboxes.checkboxesis a string that is added and/or updated in the PR description.Here's a summary of the
Codeowners file
For
CODEOWNERSI added myself as a language-specific reviewer for Spanish files. As I've currently modified the action, we specify who gets notified within the action. If we go that route, the action would need to be updated. But we could also think about how to make it more modular and rely on the codeowners files.How do we test these changes?
@ntluong95 how have you been testing these changes? I usually end up having to merge changes and test them myself, but I'm not sure if you have a more efficient system that doesn't require merging changes into main and then testing. Let me know what you think about this, or any other suggested changes of course!
I'm sure we'll have to keep iterating on all this, so looking forward to the collaboration.