Skip to content

Reformat pull request template #211

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
andrewcoughtrie merged 3 commits into from
Jan 21, 2026
Merged

Reformat pull request template #211

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
bdc2f92
Reformat pull request template
yaswant Jan 9, 2026
108fc0c
Update .github/pull_request_template.md
yaswant Jan 21, 2026
308b9b1
Merge branch 'main' into format-pr-template
yaswant Jan 21, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
42 changes: 12 additions & 30 deletions .github/pull_request_template.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -22,28 +22,19 @@ Code Reviewer: <!-- CR id, filled by SSD/CCD (e.g. @octocat) -->

## Code Quality Checklist

(_Some checks are automatically carried out via the CI pipeline_)

- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] My code follows the project's
[style guidelines](https://metoffice.github.io/lfric_core/how_to_contribute/index.html#how-to-contribute-index)
- [ ] Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the
readability of the code
- [ ] My code follows the project's [style guidelines](https://metoffice.github.io/lfric_core/how_to_contribute/index.html#how-to-contribute-index)
- [ ] Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully
Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewcoughtrie andrewcoughtrie Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure what the point of this question is, the ticket won't merge if they haven't passed so there should be no need to ask this.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@yaswant yaswant Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure what the point of this question is, the ticket won't merge if they haven't passed so there should be no need to ask this.

Currently, certain actions may fail or not run but still proceed to review. I believed this was the place to clarify that point.

Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewcoughtrie andrewcoughtrie Jan 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok I can agree with that, I do think these questions need reviewing regularly to avoid becoming too onerous.


## Testing

- [ ] I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Core rose-stem suite
- [ ] If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite
using this branch
- [ ] If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and
acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
- [ ] I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system
tests, unit tests, etc.)
- [ ] Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource
and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the
developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource
and complete in a matter of minutes)
- [ ] If required (e.g. API changes) I have also run the LFRic Apps test suite using this branch
- [ ] If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
- [ ] I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
- [ ] Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

<!-- Describe other testing performed (if applicable) -->

Expand All @@ -59,30 +50,21 @@ Code Reviewer: <!-- CR id, filled by SSD/CCD (e.g. @octocat) -->

## Performance Impact

- [ ] Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable
performance measurements have been conducted
- [ ] Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

## AI Assistance and Attribution

- [ ] Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance
of _Generative AI tool name_ (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise,
Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the
[Simulation Systems AI policy](https://metoffice.github.io/simulation-systems/FurtherDetails/ai.html)
(including attribution labels)
- [ ] Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of _Generative AI tool name_ (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the [Simulation Systems AI policy](https://metoffice.github.io/simulation-systems/FurtherDetails/ai.html) (including attribution labels)

<!-- If AI has been used, please provide more details here -->

## Documentation

- [ ] Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and
confirmed that it builds correctly
- [ ] Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

## PSyclone Approval

- [ ] If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel
interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please
contact the
[tooscollabdevteam@metoffice.gov.uk](tooscollabdevteam@metoffice.gov.uk)
- [ ] If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the [TCD Team](mailto:ToolsCollabDevTeam@metoffice.gov.uk)

# Sci/Tech Review

Expand All @@ -94,7 +76,7 @@ Code Reviewer: <!-- CR id, filled by SSD/CCD (e.g. @octocat) -->
- [ ] Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
- [ ] Sufficient testing has been completed

_Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR_
(_Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR_)

# Code Review

Expand Down
Loading