feat: add first-interaction workflow for new contributors #42
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | ||||||
| # SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | ||||||
| # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2025 The Contributors to Eclipse OpenSOVD (see CONTRIBUTORS) | ||||||
| # | ||||||
| # See the NOTICE file(s) distributed with this work for additional | ||||||
| # information regarding copyright ownership. | ||||||
| # | ||||||
| # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the | ||||||
| # terms of the Apache License Version 2.0 which is available at | ||||||
| # https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| name: CI Checks | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| on: | ||||||
| pull_request_target: | ||||||
| types: [opened] | ||||||
| issues: | ||||||
| types: [opened] | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| jobs: | ||||||
| first-interaction: | ||||||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Please pin to a specific ubuntu version (most recent). |
||||||
| permissions: | ||||||
| issues: write | ||||||
| pull-requests: write | ||||||
| steps: | ||||||
| - uses: actions/first-interaction@v1 | ||||||
| with: | ||||||
| repo-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||||||
| issue-message: | | ||||||
|
lh-sag marked this conversation as resolved.
|
||||||
| Welcome, and thanks for opening your first issue! | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Please make sure you've reviewed our [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/eclipse-opensovd/opensovd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) | ||||||
| and that your issue includes enough context for maintainers to understand the problem. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| The team will get back to you as soon as possible. | ||||||
| pr-message: | | ||||||
| Thanks for your first pull request! | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| A few things to keep in mind: | ||||||
| - Make sure CI checks pass before requesting a review. | ||||||
| - Eclipse projects require a **DCO sign-off** on every commit: | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. IMHO this is not needed anymore so we can drop this: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse.org-committers/msg01291.html If you dont mind and this is once merged you can replace opensovd-core workflow action. |
||||||
| use `git commit -s` or add `Signed-off-by: Your Name <email>` manually. | ||||||
| - See [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/eclipse-opensovd/opensovd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) for details. | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Is there a way to point to the repositories Usually the projects have some specifics.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. do they? In CDA we're missing the file entirely, but that could be an oversight on our end too 🙈 There was a problem hiding this comment. Maybe we can make the url overwritable then. If not specified pick the generic one as a fallback. At least to me it would be odd getting such comment pointing to opensovd but I want the contribution guide from opensovd-cda/-core
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. probably would be best if each project just ships the file, if it's a carbon copy so be it, but it's also easier for newcomers to find it then. I'll make sure to fix this on cda side. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| A maintainer will review your PR shortly. Welcome to the project! | ||||||
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.
Please use 2026.
The trailing
(see CONTRIBUTORS)is not common, I have not seen it in SCORE either. @alexmohr what was the intend of this remark and file. Could we simply remove it, at least he appearance in the comment.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.
Right now it is necessary to keep
(see CONTRIBUTORS)otherwise the pipeline complains that the copyright header does not match. Year can be adjusted.I'm not sure why we're using the copyright header with
CONTRIBUTORSiirc @floroks was deeper involved in the discussion.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'll clarify with the compliance people if this is necessary for some legal reasons, I'll report back
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.
So feedback from our MBTI compliance people is pretty much what @lh-sag suggested :)
We can drop the
(see Contributors)but keeping the block about notice etc (which no one discussed to remove here, just mentioning it for clarity) should be kept, because an Apache 2.0 licensed software must be shipped with a notice file if one is contained and mentioning it in the copyright makes it harder to miss the notice file (in theory at least).Imho would make sense to do this in a follow up though.