Update pull_request_template.md #2946
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request template for the GitHub repository has undergone a comprehensive restructuring to enhance clarity, safety, and technical documentation. The changes involve renaming and reorganizing sections to provide a more structured approach to describing changes. Key modifications include transforming the "Summary" section into "Product Description" with more explicit instructions, introducing a new "Technical Summary" section for design rationale, and adding a "Safety Assurance" section to emphasize risk assessment and safety considerations. The PR checklist has been renamed to "Safety story" with expanded points about risk labeling and reviewer appropriateness. A new "QA Plan" section replaces the previous "Automated test coverage" section, and a "Labels and Review" section has been added to provide additional guidance on risk assessment and change communication. Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant PR Author
participant PR Template
participant Technical Summary
participant Safety Assurance
participant QA Plan
participant Labels and Review
PR Author->>PR Template: Starts filling out PR
PR Template->>Technical Summary: Describe design rationale
PR Template->>Safety Assurance: Explain safety considerations
PR Template->>QA Plan: Outline testing strategy
PR Template->>Labels and Review: Assess and communicate risks
The sequence diagram illustrates the enhanced workflow of the pull request template, showing how an author progressively fills out different sections with increasing depth and specificity about the proposed changes. Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/pull_request_template.md (2)
16-25: Consider adding common safety considerations as a checklist.The safety sections effectively emphasize the importance of safety and data integrity. To make it even more actionable, consider adding a checklist of common safety considerations.
## Safety Assurance ### Safety story <!-- Describe: - how you became confident in this change (such as local testing). - why the change is inherently safe, and/or plans to limit the defect blast radius. In particular consider how existing data may be impacted by this change. --> + +Safety Checklist: +- [ ] Changes are backwards compatible +- [ ] Data migrations (if any) are reversible +- [ ] Failure scenarios have been considered +- [ ] Potential performance impacts have been evaluated
28-34: Enhance QA sections with specific testing strategies.Consider providing more guidance on different types of testing strategies to consider.
### Automated test coverage <!-- Identify the related test coverage and the conditions it will catch --> +<!-- +Consider: +- Unit tests for business logic +- Integration tests for API changes +- UI tests for visual changes +--> ### QA Plan <!-- - Describe QA plan that (along with test coverage) proves that this PR is regression free. - Link to QA Ticket --> +<!-- +Consider: +- Test scenarios for edge cases +- Cross-browser/device testing needs +- Performance testing requirements +-->
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/pull_request_template.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
.github/pull_request_template.md
[uncategorized] ~38-~38: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: ...hance manual QA test coverage ? If yes, "QA Note" label is set correctly - [ ] Do...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
[uncategorized] ~39-~39: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: ...r changes worth communicating ? If yes, "Release Note" label is set and a "Releas...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
[uncategorized] ~39-~39: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: ...et and a "Release Note" is specified in PR description. - [ ] Risk label is set co...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/pull_request_template.md (1)
1-5: LGTM! Clear separation of product and technical concerns.The renaming and instructions make it clearer when and how to document user-facing changes.
|
bumping this for review. |
Change to PR tempate in accordance with HQ