Skip to content

Conversation

jsjoeio
Copy link
Contributor

@jsjoeio jsjoeio commented Apr 7, 2022

This PR adds a new issue template for feature requests. Feedback welcome!

@jsjoeio jsjoeio self-assigned this Apr 7, 2022
@jsjoeio jsjoeio requested review from a team April 7, 2022 15:45
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 7, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #913 (bac6795) into main (2ca7253) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #913      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.96%   65.98%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         216      216              
  Lines       13834    13834              
  Branches      103      103              
==========================================
+ Hits         9125     9129       +4     
+ Misses       3788     3780       -8     
- Partials      921      925       +4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittest-go-macos-latest 53.04% <ø> (+0.30%) ⬆️
unittest-go-postgres- 65.72% <ø> (-0.08%) ⬇️
unittest-go-ubuntu-latest 55.36% <ø> (+0.19%) ⬆️
unittest-go-windows-2022 52.16% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittest-js 58.87% <ø> (ø)
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
coderd/database/db.go 55.17% <0.00%> (-10.35%) ⬇️
peerbroker/proxy.go 58.13% <0.00%> (-2.91%) ⬇️
provisioner/echo/serve.go 54.40% <0.00%> (-2.40%) ⬇️
coderd/parameter/compute.go 78.51% <0.00%> (-2.23%) ⬇️
peerbroker/listen.go 85.83% <0.00%> (-1.67%) ⬇️
coderd/provisionerdaemons.go 62.05% <0.00%> (-1.52%) ⬇️
peer/channel.go 83.04% <0.00%> (-0.59%) ⬇️
provisionerd/provisionerd.go 80.76% <0.00%> (ø)
coderd/workspaceresources.go 58.94% <0.00%> (+1.21%) ⬆️
peer/conn.go 80.45% <0.00%> (+4.06%) ⬆️
... and 2 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2ca7253...bac6795. Read the comment docs.

Co-authored-by: G r e y <grey@coder.com>
Co-authored-by: G r e y <grey@coder.com>
---
name: Feature request
about: Suggest an idea to improve coder
title: "Enhancement: "
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see we have a type: enhancement label as well, should we name this Feature to make room for an enhancement template?

Also do we need the prefixes or are the labels enough?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's just consolidate the type: enhancement applications to this feature one, having both seems unnecessary

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes! @vapurrmaid said the same thing. Updated!

Also do we need the prefixes or are the labels enough?

Probably not but the others have it and I think we should be consistent. So if we change here, we should change on the other templates. Thoughts?

Copy link
Member

@code-asher code-asher Apr 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's just consolidate

Makes sense to me! I am definitely in favor of that as it is always a headache opening a ticket trying to decide between them.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay I think I understood you both right! Let me know if I missed something

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ohhh I mean the prefixes in the issues like [Bug]: Fix this bug and then also tagging with bug.

I actually quite like the prefixes in the labels personally!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I do too, but I defer to @misskniss here.

Copy link
Member

@code-asher code-asher Apr 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Completely fair. Are we good with making Bug:, Feat:, and Docs: prefixes in issue titles our pattern? @misskniss Or would we rather without?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(I say go ahead and merge though if we do end up removing them we can do it separately.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(I say go ahead and merge though if we do end up removing them we can do it separately.)

Sounds good!

@jsjoeio jsjoeio requested a review from greyscaled April 7, 2022 15:54
Copy link
Contributor

@greyscaled greyscaled left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice one @jsjoeio 🎉 !

@jsjoeio jsjoeio merged commit 17848b3 into main Apr 7, 2022
@jsjoeio jsjoeio deleted the jsjoeio/issue-temp-feature branch April 7, 2022 17:35
@misskniss misskniss added this to the V2 Beta milestone May 15, 2022
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