fix: issue templates referenced non-existent labels#609
Conversation
propose-anchor ("new-anchor", "needs-validation"), contract-proposal
("new-contract", "needs-validation") and process-proposal ("process",
"discussion") referenced labels the repository does not define, so
issues created from these templates silently arrived unlabeled. All
three now use existing labels (enhancement / question).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
WalkthroughDiese PR aktualisiert die Label-Kategorisierungen in drei GitHub Issue Template-Dateien. Contract-Proposal und Propose-Anchor ersetzen ChangesIssue Template Label-Kategorisierung
Geschätzter Code-Review-Aufwand🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 Minuten Möglicherweise verwandte Pull Requests
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Summary
Three issue templates referenced labels the repository does not define, so issues created from them silently arrived unlabeled (discovered while filing #608 —
ghfails loudly, the web flow drops them silently):propose-anchor.ymlnew-anchor,needs-validationenhancementcontract-proposal.ymlnew-contract,needs-validationenhancementprocess-proposal.ymlprocess,discussionquestionAlternative considered: creating the five missing labels instead — that would allow finer proposal filtering. Went with the minimal fix to existing labels; happy to switch if dedicated proposal labels are preferred.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
Releases-Hinweise