docs: add contribution templates and triage bot-generated PRs#251
docs: add contribution templates and triage bot-generated PRs#251
Conversation
Add issue templates (bug report, feature request), PR template, and PR quality expectations to CONTRIBUTING.md to reduce low-quality and bot-generated contributions. Closes #249 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdded GitHub issue templates (bug report, feature request, config), a pull request template, and updated CONTRIBUTING.md with pull request quality expectations and testing/linking requirements for the notebooklm-py repository. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![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 standardized GitHub templates for bug reports, feature requests, and pull requests, while also updating the contribution guidelines with specific quality expectations. A review comment suggests adding a formatting check to the pull request template to ensure alignment with the project's existing linting and formatting requirements.
|
|
||
| - [ ] I tested these changes locally | ||
| - [ ] Tests pass (`pytest`) | ||
| - [ ] Linting passes (`ruff check src/ tests/`) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The PR template should include a check for code formatting to align with the requirements specified in CONTRIBUTING.md (line 52). Additionally, using backticks for commands improves readability and consistency with the rest of the documentation.
| - [ ] Linting passes (`ruff check src/ tests/`) | |
| - [ ] Linting passes (ruff check src/ tests/) | |
| - [ ] Formatting passes (ruff format --check src/ tests/) |
References
- The CONTRIBUTING.md file (line 52) specifies the linting and formatting requirements that should be reflected in the PR checklist. (link)
- Project descriptions and templates should maintain a professional tone by avoiding informal abbreviations like 'etc.' and ensuring proper punctuation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Already addressed in commit 81d63a4: added ruff format --check and mypy to the PR template checklist.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (1)
5-7: Consider making the issue reference more flexible.The current template uses "Closes #<issue_number>", which assumes every PR closes an issue. However, CONTRIBUTING.md allows PRs that "clearly describe the problem being solved" without requiring a pre-existing issue. Consider making this section more flexible to accommodate both cases.
📝 Suggested refinement
## Related Issue -Closes #<issue_number> +Closes #<issue_number> (or describe the problem if no issue exists)🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md around lines 5 - 7, The "## Related Issue" section currently forces "Closes #<issue_number>" which assumes every PR closes an issue; update the PR template to make this optional and flexible by replacing or augmenting the "Closes #<issue_number>" line (the Related Issue section) with an open prompt like "Related issue(s) or context (optional):" and include guidance text such as "Optional: link to issue(s) or describe the problem being solved if no issue exists" so contributors can either reference an issue or describe the context.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md:
- Around line 27-29: The fenced code block containing the placeholder "Paste
error output here" is missing a language identifier; update the opening fence
(the triple backticks that start the block containing "Paste error output here")
to include a language token such as text (e.g., ```text) so the block renders
with proper syntax highlighting and formatting.
---
Nitpick comments:
In @.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:
- Around line 5-7: The "## Related Issue" section currently forces "Closes
#<issue_number>" which assumes every PR closes an issue; update the PR template
to make this optional and flexible by replacing or augmenting the "Closes
#<issue_number>" line (the Related Issue section) with an open prompt like
"Related issue(s) or context (optional):" and include guidance text such as
"Optional: link to issue(s) or describe the problem being solved if no issue
exists" so contributors can either reference an issue or describe the context.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: ca8b897d-59b8-4b39-8183-030eb002936e
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdCONTRIBUTING.md
- Add ruff format and mypy checks to PR template checklist - Add debug output section to bug report template - Add config.yml to disable blank issues Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md:
- Around line 42-44: The fenced code block containing "notebooklm -vv
<your-command-here>" is missing a language token which triggers MD040; update
that fence to include a shell/bash language identifier (e.g., add "bash" after
the opening ```), so the block becomes a bash code fence and resolves the MD040
warning while preserving the command text.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 6562cc0b-24c2-43c3-9a13-e97a7d55e6a0
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 participant
Summary
bot-generatedlabel and applied it to 5 suspect issues/PRs (fix: migration overwrites stale profile cookies with fresh login data #247, fix: deduplicate research sources before import #236, fix: deduplicate imports on retry and clean up error sources after import #242, Bug: research wait --import-all imports duplicate sources on timeout retry #241, feat: add --timeout option to source add-research command #202)Triage Details
Audited recent contributions and identified bot-generated PRs based on:
Labeled as
bot-generated:Not labeled (established accounts using AI tools legitimately):
Closes #249
Test plan
bot-generatedlabel created and applied to 5 items🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit