feat(ci): carry PR quality gates onto dev2-go (#648) #683
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ | ||
| "use strict"; | ||
|
|
||
| const path = require("node:path"); | ||
| const { | ||
| clean, | ||
| isPlaceholderOnlyValue, | ||
| hasSubstantialStructuredContent, | ||
| } = require(path.join(__dirname, "issue-quality.cjs")); | ||
|
|
||
| const ANCESTRY_BEHIND_THRESHOLD = 20; | ||
| /** Cap on ahead_by vs main so stale `dev` forks (many commits ahead of main) are not flagged. */ | ||
| const ANCESTRY_AHEAD_MAIN_MAX = 5; | ||
| const MIN_SECTION_LEN = 40; | ||
| const MIN_RICH_SECTIONS = 2; | ||
| const UNSTRUCTURED_MIN_LEN = 120; | ||
| const UNSTRUCTURED_MIN_BLOCKS = 2; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Exact instruction / checklist lines from `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`. | ||
| * Untouched templates must not count as substance. | ||
| */ | ||
| const PR_TEMPLATE_BOILERPLATE_LINES = new Set([ | ||
|
Comment on lines
+19
to
+22
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new validator embeds exact lines from Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| "explain the user-visible or maintainer-facing change.", | ||
| "list the commands or checks you ran.", | ||
| "scope stays focused and avoids unrelated cleanup.", | ||
| "docs or release notes were updated when needed.", | ||
| "security-sensitive changes were reviewed for secrets, auth, and unsafe defaults.", | ||
| ]); | ||
|
|
||
| function isWrongAncestry({ | ||
| behindMain, | ||
| behindBase, | ||
| aheadMain = 0, | ||
| threshold = ANCESTRY_BEHIND_THRESHOLD, | ||
| aheadMainMax = ANCESTRY_AHEAD_MAIN_MAX, | ||
| }) { | ||
| return ( | ||
| behindMain === 0 && | ||
| behindBase >= threshold && | ||
| aheadMain <= aheadMainMax | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function authorHasPushPermission(permission) { | ||
| return permission === "admin" || permission === "maintain" || permission === "write"; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * True when the body uses literal backslash-n as the dominant line break | ||
| * (agent bug seen on #644) rather than real newlines. | ||
| */ | ||
| function hasEscapedNewlines(text) { | ||
| const escaped = (text.match(/\\n/g) || []).length; | ||
| if (escaped < 2) return false; | ||
| const real = (text.match(/\n/g) || []).length; | ||
| return escaped > real; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function countContentBlocks(text) { | ||
| const blocks = text | ||
| .split(/\n\s*\n/) | ||
| .map((b) => b.trim()) | ||
| .filter(Boolean); | ||
| if (blocks.length >= 2) return blocks.length; | ||
| const bullets = text | ||
| .split("\n") | ||
| .map((l) => l.trim()) | ||
| .filter((l) => /^[-*+]\s+\S/.test(l)); | ||
| return Math.max(blocks.length, bullets.length); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function normalizeTemplateLine(line) { | ||
| return line | ||
| .replace(/^\s*[-*+]\s+/, "") | ||
| .replace(/^\s*\[[ xX]\]\s+/, "") | ||
| .replace(/^\s*#{1,6}\s+/, "") | ||
| .trim() | ||
| .toLowerCase(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Drop stock PR template headings, instructions, and checklist lines. */ | ||
| function stripPrTemplateBoilerplate(text) { | ||
| return text | ||
| .split("\n") | ||
| .filter((line) => { | ||
| const normalized = normalizeTemplateLine(line); | ||
| if (!normalized) return true; | ||
| if (PR_TEMPLATE_BOILERPLATE_LINES.has(normalized)) return false; | ||
| if (/^(summary|verification|checklist)$/.test(normalized)) return false; | ||
| return true; | ||
| }) | ||
| .join("\n"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function assessPrDescription(body) { | ||
| if (typeof body !== "string" || !body.trim()) { | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "empty" }; | ||
| } | ||
| if (hasEscapedNewlines(body)) { | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "escaped_newlines" }; | ||
| } | ||
| const withoutTemplate = stripPrTemplateBoilerplate(body); | ||
|
Comment on lines
+99
to
+102
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an otherwise valid description contains generated HTML metadata with several literal Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| const cleaned = clean(withoutTemplate); | ||
| if (!cleaned) { | ||
| const strippedComments = withoutTemplate.replace(/<!--[\s\S]*?-->/g, "").trim(); | ||
| if (!strippedComments) return { ok: false, reason: "empty" }; | ||
| if (isPlaceholderOnlyValue(strippedComments)) { | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "placeholder" }; | ||
| } | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "empty" }; | ||
| } | ||
| if (isPlaceholderOnlyValue(cleaned)) { | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "placeholder" }; | ||
| } | ||
| if (hasSubstantialStructuredContent(cleaned, MIN_SECTION_LEN, MIN_RICH_SECTIONS)) { | ||
| return { ok: true }; | ||
| } | ||
| if ( | ||
| cleaned.length >= UNSTRUCTURED_MIN_LEN && | ||
| countContentBlocks(cleaned) >= UNSTRUCTURED_MIN_BLOCKS | ||
| ) { | ||
| return { ok: true }; | ||
| } | ||
| return { ok: false, reason: "thin" }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function collectPrQualityFailures({ | ||
| baseRef, | ||
| allowedBases, | ||
| body, | ||
| behindMain, | ||
| behindBase, | ||
| aheadMain = 0, | ||
| authorPermission, | ||
| permissionLookupFailed = false, | ||
| ancestryLookupFailed = false, | ||
| }) { | ||
| const failures = []; | ||
| const wrongBase = !allowedBases.includes(baseRef); | ||
| if (wrongBase) { | ||
| failures.push({ code: "wrong_base" }); | ||
| } else { | ||
| // Permission lookup fails closed (still evaluate ancestry). Compare API | ||
| // failures skip ancestry — zeros would falsely pass the #644 heuristic. | ||
| const skipAncestry = | ||
| ancestryLookupFailed || | ||
| (!permissionLookupFailed && authorHasPushPermission(authorPermission)); | ||
|
Comment on lines
+145
to
+147
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When either compare API request fails transiently, AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L83-L86 Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| if ( | ||
| !skipAncestry && | ||
| isWrongAncestry({ behindMain, behindBase, aheadMain }) | ||
| ) { | ||
| failures.push({ code: "wrong_ancestry" }); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const desc = assessPrDescription(body); | ||
| if (!desc.ok) { | ||
| failures.push({ code: "bad_description", reason: desc.reason }); | ||
| } | ||
| return failures; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| module.exports = { | ||
| ANCESTRY_BEHIND_THRESHOLD, | ||
| ANCESTRY_AHEAD_MAIN_MAX, | ||
| isWrongAncestry, | ||
| authorHasPushPermission, | ||
| assessPrDescription, | ||
| collectPrQualityFailures, | ||
| hasEscapedNewlines, | ||
| stripPrTemplateBoilerplate, | ||
| }; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A new-form bug is identified only by the still-editable
Client or integrationheading. After submission, an author can remove that heading together withVersionandOperating system; the stored kind orbuglabel keeps the report classified as a bug, butisNewBugFormbecomes false and these new missing-field checks are skipped, so the edited report validates successfully. Persist whether the issue originated from the new form, or use immutable workflow state rather than a removable heading to decide whether these fields are required.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.