Skip to content
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.

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

Add a check to validate the changelog on PRs #3190

Closed
JorTurFer opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4731
Closed

Add a check to validate the changelog on PRs #3190

JorTurFer opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4731
Assignees
Labels
automation enhancement New feature or request help wanted Looking for support from community

Comments

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

Proposal

Even it's documented the proper way to add entries in the changelog, there are cases where we still approve PRs with the entry unsorted or with other style errors.
It's difficult to review every thing without any error, but maybe we can create a bash script that checks the unreleased section to validate it and append it to pre-commit checks

Use-Case

No response

Anything else?

No response

@JorTurFer JorTurFer added needs-discussion feature-request All issues for new features that have not been committed to labels Jun 19, 2022
@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove added enhancement New feature or request automation help wanted Looking for support from community and removed needs-discussion feature-request All issues for new features that have not been committed to labels Jun 20, 2022
@nitishchauhan0022
Copy link
Contributor

/assing @JorTurFer can you please share the link for

Even it's documented the proper way to add entries in the changelog

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
automation enhancement New feature or request help wanted Looking for support from community
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants