Skip to content

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

Open
wants to merge 37 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Create/update an issue per feature #7

wants to merge 37 commits into from

Conversation

foolip
Copy link
Collaborator

@foolip foolip commented Jun 13, 2025

No description provided.

@foolip foolip force-pushed the issue-per-feature branch from 956766e to 0b0a11f Compare June 13, 2025 10:14
Co-authored-by: Patrick Brosset <[email protected]>
@foolip foolip marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2025 08:38
@foolip
Copy link
Collaborator Author

foolip commented Jul 15, 2025

I think this would work now. @captainbrosset care to review? In particular the issue template is important, and isn't very good yet.

@foolip
Copy link
Collaborator Author

foolip commented Jul 15, 2025

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.

@foolip
Copy link
Collaborator Author

foolip commented Jul 15, 2025

I got the escaping wrong, deleting some code should fix that...

This should fix < in issue titles
@foolip foolip mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2025
@foolip
Copy link
Collaborator Author

foolip commented Jul 15, 2025

Detecting open issues doesn't reliably work, debugging...

Update: fixed

@foolip foolip requested a review from captainbrosset July 23, 2025 14:39
}
}

// Sort features by earliest release date in any browser, using subsequent shipping
Copy link

@captainbrosset captainbrosset Jul 28, 2025

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.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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?

Copy link
Member

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.

@foolip
Copy link
Collaborator Author

foolip commented Aug 21, 2025

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.

Copy link
Member

@tidoust tidoust left a 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 =
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
const postitionsUrl =
const positionsUrl =

Comment on lines +64 to +67
const resp = await fetch(postitionsUrl);
if (!resp.ok) {
throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${postitionsUrl}: ${resp.statusText}`);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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
Copy link
Member

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants