You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I observed a list of GitHub workflow files that PTB did create in repository python-extension-common. I am wondering whether we should mark these files as "generated" in a file .gitattributes with potential content
The effect of marking files as "generated" is that during code review, GitHub will initially hide the files with a comment "This file is generated". So human reviewers can skip this file during review as it is generated anyway and hence does not need to be reviewed. By that human reviewers can save time and focus on manual changes the should of course be subject to review.
Solution for java developers implemented in project-keeper
Task(s)
We could think of first potentially enhancing the PTBs documentation and giving a recommendation about how to deal with these workflow files, whether they should be marked as "generated" and how to update the PTB.
Second, PTB could be enhanced to even create and populate the file .gitattributes.
We could define a strategy for PTB to update these files when a repo switches to a newer version of the PTB, potentially containing updated versions of some of the workflow files?
Third, there could be options enabling a user to deliberately exclude one or multiple of the workflow files to prevent manual changes from being overwritten when updating the PTB.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Summary
I observed a list of GitHub workflow files that PTB did create in repository python-extension-common. I am wondering whether we should mark these files as "generated" in a file
.gitattributes
with potential contentDetails
The effect of marking files as "generated" is that during code review, GitHub will initially hide the files with a comment "This file is generated". So human reviewers can skip this file during review as it is generated anyway and hence does not need to be reviewed. By that human reviewers can save time and focus on manual changes the should of course be subject to review.
See PK PR #562 for example:
Background & Context
I created this ticket based on observations in repository python-extension-common recently adopting the PTB.
Please also see the project-keeper for Java implementing all the tasks named below.
References
Task(s)
.gitattributes
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: