Skip to content

Describe skip label availability and add skip-specific comment#53

Open
cotti wants to merge 8 commits intomainfrom
feature/skip-label
Open

Describe skip label availability and add skip-specific comment#53
cotti wants to merge 8 commits intomainfrom
feature/skip-label

Conversation

@cotti
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cotti cotti commented Apr 1, 2026

Depends on elastic/docs-builder#3013

This pull request updates the changelog automation workflow to improve communication with contributors about changelog label requirements and skipping logic. It enhances PR comments to clarify which labels can be used to skip changelog generation and confirms when changelog generation is skipped due to label rules.

Improvements to PR comments and workflow behavior:

  • The failure comment now lists both available type labels and skip labels, making it clearer how to proceed or opt out of changelog generation. [1] [2] [3]
  • When changelog generation is skipped due to label rules, the workflow posts a dedicated comment confirming the skip and listing the matched skip labels if applicable. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Workflow and script changes:

  • The workflow now passes SKIP_LABELS as an environment variable to the comment-posting scripts, enabling them to display skip label information. [1] [2]
  • Added a new script, post-skipped-comment.js, to handle posting comments when changelog generation is skipped. [1] [2]
  • The failure comment script (post-failure-comment.js) was updated to include skip label details and improved messaging.

@cotti cotti requested a review from a team April 1, 2026 16:51
@cotti cotti self-assigned this Apr 1, 2026
@cotti cotti requested a review from reakaleek April 1, 2026 16:51
@cotti cotti added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 1, 2026
Mpdreamz

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Mpdreamz Mpdreamz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated review — my earlier finding #1 (missing skip-labels output) is stale: docs-builder#3013 adds it. That PR should be listed as a prerequisite here.

Two findings remain:

# Severity Finding
1 🟡 UX Skip comments add noise — contributors who added a skip label don't need confirmation
2 🟡 Logic skipped status fires for body-only edits, bot commits, AND label exclusions — only the last involves labels

Recommendation: Drop post-skipped-comment.js. Keep the skip-label listing in the failure comment only (for no-label status) — that's where the info is actionable. The failure comment changes in post-failure-comment.js are good and should stay.

Also: link docs-builder#3013 as a prerequisite — this PR is broken without it.

cotti and others added 4 commits April 7, 2026 11:20
* Let docs-builder know it's running on CI to set landing-page-path

* Set CI again.
* Add agentic workflow infrastructure and docs-check workflow

Introduces gh-aw agentic workflow support alongside the existing composite
actions. Workflow .md sources live in workflows/ as a library; a compile
script copies them into .github/workflows/ for the gh-aw compiler and
produces .lock.yml files that consumer repos reference via workflow_call.

First workflow: docs-check — analyzes PRs/commits for documentation impact
using the Elastic Docs MCP server and posts structured findings as comments.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Simplify tooling: use gh extension instead of Go binary

Replace go install with gh extension install for the gh-aw compiler.
Drop actionlint binary download — the repo already has it via pre-commit.
Remove bin/ dependency entirely.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Fix CI failures and address review feedback

- Move `roles` under `on:` (latest gh-aw schema change)
- Exclude .lock.yml from pre-commit trailing-whitespace and end-of-file-fixer
- Replace custom lint/release Makefile targets with `pre-commit run --all`
- Remove release target (release-drafter handles releases)
- Recompile lock file with latest gh-aw

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Fix CI: recompile with latest gh-aw, exclude lock files from actionlint

- Update gh-aw extension (v0.63.0 → v0.65.5) and recompile lock file
- Exclude .lock.yml from actionlint pre-commit hook (generated files
  reference secrets injected by the gh-aw runtime)
- Fix .gitattributes missing trailing newline

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Rename workflows/ to agentic-workflows/

Update all references in compile script, Makefile, CI, README,
DEVELOPING.md, and workflow docs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Add /create-agentic-workflow Claude skill

Interactive skill that scaffolds the three required files for a new
gh-aw agentic workflow: source .md, example.yml trigger, and README.
Guides users through pattern selection, trigger config, and prompt
structure.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Teach skill about fragment selection and creation

Add Step 3 that reads available fragments, explains what each provides
and when to include it, documents import rules, and guides users on
when to create new fragments vs. reuse existing ones.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…#45)

* Harden release workflows against tag injection and credential leakage

Made-with: Cursor

* Set workflow-level permissions to {} for least-privilege

The job already declares contents: write, so the workflow-level
contents: read was redundant. Empty permissions at workflow level
ensures no implicit grants.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@cotti cotti requested a review from Mpdreamz April 7, 2026 14:22
@SylvainJuge
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think that this PR might cover #51 by providing to users which label to use to ignore the PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants