Skip to content

Conversation

@wicksipedia
Copy link
Member

@wicksipedia wicksipedia commented Mar 22, 2024

  1. What triggered this change? (PBI link, Email Subject, conversation + reason, etc)

email RE: [GitHub] You've used 75% of included services for the SSWConsulting account

  1. What was changed?

changed stale workflow from code to an action from GitHub
changed schedule to weekly
added a dependabot config

sample run (includes more logging): https://github.com/SSWConsulting/SSW.GitHub.Template/actions/runs/8385929456

  1. Did you do pair or mob ensemble programming?

no

runs weekly
configured not to touch issues
configured to mark prs as stale only (not close them)
@github-actions
Copy link

PR Metrics

Thanks for keeping your pull request small.
Thanks for adding tests.

Lines
Product Code 0
Test Code 0
Subtotal 0
Ignored Code 40
Total 40

Metrics computed by PR Metrics. Add it to your Azure DevOps and GitHub PRs!

@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Improve-stale-pr-check XS✔ ◾ Improve-stale-pr-check Mar 22, 2024
Copy link
Member

@danielmackay danielmackay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@wicksipedia wicksipedia merged commit 5f714bc into main Mar 24, 2024
@wicksipedia wicksipedia deleted the improve-stale-pr-check branch March 24, 2024 23:33

schedule:
# https://crontab.guru/#0_20_*_*_0 - At 20:00 on Sunday (UTC)
- cron: '0 20 * * 0'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we not run this at least once a day?
Instead of once a week?

@GordonBeeming
Copy link
Member

@wicksipedia

  1. is the intent to change PR Stale just for private repos or public too?
  2. If the standard is different, we should update https://www.ssw.com.au/rules/standard-set-of-pull-request-workflows/

@wicksipedia
Copy link
Member Author

  1. is the intent to change PR Stale just for private repos or public too?

we should ideally do the same for both
the original flow worked well for a particular client since we needed to gamify smaller prs to change behaviour. Not really a requirement for all projects

If we wanted to return to that setup, it would be better to have an org level action scan all repos and age prs as required - it would be efficient with action minute usage.

  1. If the standard is different, we should update https://www.ssw.com.au/rules/standard-set-of-pull-request-workflows/

Only the label screenshots need to be updated, not sure if it's a must have right now. I'll update them once we have a pr that is stale by the new standard - #24

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants