Track forgotten nominations #2553
Conversation
shtlrs
added
p: 2 - normal
Xithrius
added
t: feature
|
|
||
| owner: str = "python-discord" | ||
| name: str = "mods" | ||
| token: str |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR throws an error when the github token is missing (when it tries it get it from .env file as defined in constants). Maybe we can try making this optional. We also need to update the .env guide on the site https://www.pythondiscord.com/pages/guides/pydis-guides/contributing/bot/#appendix-full-env-file-options
| token: str | |
| token: str = "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ha ! Yes.
It didn't before because we weren't using pydantic at that time.
Good catch, i will take care of it!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we already have API_KEYS_GITHUB (its under _Keys as github) as optional, is the new token constant any different or does it use a different auth approach ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Github introduced tokens per repo.
So this one will be granular in regards to the repo where tasks will be created
| @@ -652,6 +663,92 @@ async def _nomination_to_string(self, nomination: Nomination) -> str: | |||
|
|
|||
| return lines.strip() | |||
|
|
|||
| @tasks.loop(hours=72) | |||
| async def track_forgotten_nominations(self) -> None: | |||
| """Track active nominations who are more than 2 weeks old.""" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like it would be more accurate to use the term active reviews instead of active nominations because active nomination refers to candidates in the talentpool who may or may not be currently undrgoing review in #nominations-voting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or at least that's how I heard the phrase "active nominations" being used.
|
|
||
| for nomination in nominations: | ||
| # We avoid the scenario of this task run & nomination created at the same time | ||
| if not nomination.thread_id: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure I understand the purpose of this statement because it looks like it's taken care of here . Is it here in case this method is used somewhere else in a different scenario?
| section = "github_mods_" | ||
|
|
||
| owner: str = "python-discord" | ||
| name: str = "mods" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I very vaguely remember the discussion reagrding this feature so I would like to double check whether the issue needs to be raised on the python-discord/mods repo or python-discord/admins (?) repo.
Whenever a vote has passed the upvote threshold, the admins add a ticket to the admin tasks tracker** and not python-discord/mods repo (AFAICT) - which is why I'm asking for clarification on which repo stale reviews should be posted.
**I'm not actually sure what the "admin tasks tracker" is, I always assumed it's a bunch of issues raised on python-discord/admins or something, similar to the python-discord/meta repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, admin tasks tracker is the admin-tasks repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, the issue is to be raised on python-discord/admin-tasks, Chris just confirmed.
wookie184
added
s: waiting for author
closes #2226
The idea is to fetch active nominations that are more than 2 weeks old, and create admin issues for them in Github so that staff will do the follow up.
As soon as a vote is tracked, we add a "馃帿" reaction (which can change) to it to make sure we don't create duplicate issues for it, instead of keeping track in another way