-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Create/update an issue per feature #7
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
956766e
to
0b0a11f
Compare
Co-authored-by: Patrick Brosset <[email protected]>
I think this would work now. @captainbrosset care to review? In particular the issue template is important, and isn't very good yet. |
Co-authored-by: François Daoust <[email protected]>
Seeing that it would "only" create ~300 issues I went ahead and triggered this in https://github.com/web-platform-dx/developer-signals/actions/runs/16290425578/job/45998890724 to shake out additional bugs. Issues are being created now. |
I got the escaping wrong, deleting some code should fix that... |
This should fix < in issue titles
Detecting open issues doesn't reliably work, debugging... Update: fixed |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Sort features by earliest release date in any browser, using subsequent shipping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need to sort the features exactly? I'm not sure I follow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not strictly necessary, but I wanted the issue list to be roughly chronological, with older features being created first, similar to what would happen if this script had been running for years already.
Now that the issues are already seeded I could just delete this. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it's fine to keep the code now that it exists. Sorting logic is not fantastically straightforward, but shouldn't need to change much, if at all.
Co-authored-by: Patrick Brosset <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Patrick Brosset <[email protected]>
I've set up publishing to GitHub pages now. https://github.com/web-platform-dx/developer-signals/actions/runs/17132686614 failed, but I think it would work if the setup is on main, I tried the same setup in https://github.com/foolip/spec-reactions first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One typo on a varianble name, but this looks good to me.
It seems orthogonal to this PR but I remember we discussed tracking the evolution of the number of reactions over time. The published JSON manifest file will only have the total number of +1s. Would tracking involve merging different versions of the manifest file over time?
// | ||
// TODO: Migrate to https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features-mappings/ | ||
// once that is published to NPM. | ||
const postitionsUrl = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
const postitionsUrl = | |
const positionsUrl = |
const resp = await fetch(postitionsUrl); | ||
if (!resp.ok) { | ||
throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${postitionsUrl}: ${resp.statusText}`); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
const resp = await fetch(postitionsUrl); | |
if (!resp.ok) { | |
throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${postitionsUrl}: ${resp.statusText}`); | |
} | |
const resp = await fetch(positionsUrl); | |
if (!resp.ok) { | |
throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${positionsUrl}: ${resp.statusText}`); | |
} |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Sort features by earliest release date in any browser, using subsequent shipping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it's fine to keep the code now that it exists. Sorting logic is not fantastically straightforward, but shouldn't need to change much, if at all.
No description provided.