Add pull request templates - #51
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ | |||
| <!--- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will probably be easier for most repos and contributors to just use a single template, like we do in NVDA.
I think we do need two different PR templates though, one designed for contributions to this template, and one designed for contributions to add-ons.
when syncing via #46 , we should set the default template appropriately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the latest commits, I reworked the templates, so now we have only two: one for changes to the template itself and the other for the add-ons. I put them in the pull requests directory in the .github folder, so when someone makes a pull request, they will show up together. It's easy for me, after the mentioned pull requests are merged, to make the script delete the template-specific pull request template, then move the add-on up a directory and rename it.
… template it self
…or template changes
|
i think this will address all consernes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
The add-on PR template includes empty YAML front matter fields (title: '', labels: '') that should be removed to avoid unintended behavior or noisy metadata.
Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.
Pull request overview
This PR adds multiple pull request templates under .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/ to standardize PR descriptions for both template-infrastructure changes and downstream add-on changes, aligning with the “default GitHub project files” work in #48.
Changes:
- Added a template-focused PR template (
TEMPLATE_PR.md) for changes to the AddonTemplate repo infrastructure/tooling/docs. - Added an add-on-focused PR template (
ADDON_PR.md) for feature/fix PRs in downstream NVDA add-on repos created from this template.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/TEMPLATE_PR.md |
Adds a PR template tailored to template infrastructure/build/CI/tooling changes. |
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/ADDON_PR.md |
Adds a PR template tailored to add-on feature/fix/testing/metadata validation. |
Review details
- Files reviewed: 2/2 changed files
- Comments generated: 1
- Review effort level: Lite
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| --- | ||
| name: NVDA Add-on Feature / Fix PR | ||
| about: Use this template for PRs that modify add-on functionality, features, bug fixes, or translations. | ||
| title: '' | ||
| labels: '' | ||
| --- |
| @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you please also add a symlink from PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md to this file, and documentation encouraging add-on repo owners to update the symlink to the other template
| title: '[Template] ' | ||
| labels: 'template' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this work with PR templates? how?
| ### Migration / Upgrade Instructions (if applicable) | ||
| <!-- Detail any steps downstream maintainers must take to adopt these template changes. --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Local Quality Checks & Verification |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this section should be broader: just a "Testing strategy" section to cover how each PR is tested
| - [ ] Ran `pytest` with all tests passing. | ||
| - [ ] Verified CI workflow script behavior locally or via test workflow run. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Documentation & Changelog |
| ## Documentation & Changelog | ||
| - [ ] Updated `readme.md` or developer documentation (if applicable). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Documentation & Changelog | |
| - [ ] Updated `readme.md` or developer documentation (if applicable). |
| ## Type of Change | ||
| - [ ] Build System / SCons updates (`sconstruct`, `site_scons/`) | ||
| - [ ] CI/CD & GitHub Actions (`.github/workflows/`, `.github/scripts/`) | ||
| - [ ] Development Dependencies & Tooling (`pyproject.toml`, `uv.lock`, `prek.toml`) | ||
| - [ ] Template Documentation & Boilerplate (`readme.md`, `docs/`, `manifest.ini.tpl`) | ||
| - [ ] Bug fix in template scripts/code | ||
| - [ ] Refactoring / Code Quality improvement | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
most of these are just listing files in the diff, which can be checked by looking at the diff
| ## Type of Change | |
| - [ ] Build System / SCons updates (`sconstruct`, `site_scons/`) | |
| - [ ] CI/CD & GitHub Actions (`.github/workflows/`, `.github/scripts/`) | |
| - [ ] Development Dependencies & Tooling (`pyproject.toml`, `uv.lock`, `prek.toml`) | |
| - [ ] Template Documentation & Boilerplate (`readme.md`, `docs/`, `manifest.ini.tpl`) | |
| - [ ] Bug fix in template scripts/code | |
| - [ ] Refactoring / Code Quality improvement |
| ## NVDA Testing & Verification Environment | ||
| - **Minimum NVDA Version Tested:** <!-- e.g. 2024.1 --> | ||
| - **Latest NVDA Version Tested:** <!-- e.g. 2026.2 / latest alpha --> | ||
| - **OS / Platform:** Windows 10 / 11 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it might be worth asking for full windows version here including version number
|
|
||
| ## NVDA Testing & Verification Environment | ||
| - **Minimum NVDA Version Tested:** <!-- e.g. 2024.1 --> | ||
| - **Latest NVDA Version Tested:** <!-- e.g. 2026.2 / latest alpha --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"latest alpha" is never useful, we always need version numbers
| ## Local Quality Checks | ||
| - [ ] Ran `ruff check .` / `prek` cleanly. | ||
| - [ ] Ran `pytest` with 100% passing tests. | ||
| - [ ] Tested add-on bundle installation locally (`scons`). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
similarly I think "Testing strategy" is more useful than "local quality checks". most of these checks would be automated via ci/cd
This adds default PR templates for the add-on template repository, covering part of #48.