Merging the Prow from dev branch #78
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Abu <abdullahfakrudeen2020@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Abu <abdullahfakrudeen2020@gmail.com>
Replace in-repo command handling and JS workflow logic with an action-based implementation. Add prow-merge and prow-pr-jobs workflows and a .prowlabels.yaml label configuration. Update CONTRIBUTING.md with Prow command docs. Remove legacy Python CI workflows, docs/PROW_QUICKSTART.md, and prow/plugins.yaml. Signed-off-by: Abu <abdullahfakrudeen2020@gmail.com>
feat: Add Prow Commands for Issues and Pull Requests
Summary of ChangesHello @mdxabu, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request integrates Prow-style bot commands into the repository, providing a standardized and efficient way to manage issues and pull requests directly through comments. This streamlines common development workflows by enabling automated actions such as labeling, assignment, and status changes, improving overall project organization and collaboration. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Ignored Files
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces Prow-style bot commands by adding a .prowlabels.yaml configuration file and updating CONTRIBUTING.md with instructions. The changes are well-structured. My review includes suggestions to improve the label taxonomy by removing redundant area labels and to enhance visual clarity by resolving color collisions between different label types. I've also pointed out the corresponding documentation update required in CONTRIBUTING.md.
| # Prow Labels Configuration for BHV (Behavioral Health Vault) | ||
| # This file defines labels that can be used with /kind, /area, /priority commands | ||
|
|
||
| labels: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are several color collisions between labels of different categories, which can make it difficult to quickly assess the status of an issue or PR from its labels. For example:
kind/performance(L35) andpriority/p2(L48) both use#fbca04.kind/feature(L11),priority/p3(L52), andapproved(L98) all use#0e8a16.priority/p1(L44),do-not-merge/hold(L102), anddo-not-merge/work-in-progress(L106) all use#d93f0b.
Consider using a more distinct color palette for different label categories (e.g., kind, priority, workflow) to improve visual clarity.
| - name: area/documentation | ||
| color: 5319e7 | ||
| description: Issues or PRs related to documentation | ||
|
|
||
| - name: area/security | ||
| color: 5319e7 | ||
| description: Issues or PRs related to security |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The labels area/documentation and area/security seem redundant given the existence of kind/documentation and kind/security. Typically, kind describes the nature of the change (e.g., bug, feature, docs), while area specifies the component of the codebase affected (e.g., api, frontend). A documentation change is best captured by kind/documentation, and a security issue by kind/security. To simplify the label taxonomy and avoid confusion, consider removing these two area labels.
|
|
||
| **Labeling (Organization Members):** | ||
| - `/kind <type>` - Set type: bug, feature, enhancement, documentation, question, cleanup, security, performance | ||
| - `/area <name>` - Set area: api, auth, database, frontend, storage, testing, ci-cd, documentation, security |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The list of areas includes documentation and security. As noted in the review for .prowlabels.yaml, these are likely redundant with kind/documentation and kind/security. If you remove those area labels, please update this line to reflect the change to keep the documentation consistent.
| - `/area <name>` - Set area: api, auth, database, frontend, storage, testing, ci-cd, documentation, security | |
| - `/area <name>` - Set area: api, auth, database, frontend, storage, testing, ci-cd |
1 participant
This PR introduces Prow-style bot commands