CONSOLE-5203: Remove old QE team from our repos#16312
CONSOLE-5203: Remove old QE team from our repos#16312cajieh wants to merge 1 commit intoopenshift:mainfrom
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@cajieh: This pull request references CONSOLE-5203 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the sub-task to target the "5.0.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cajieh The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
Bot
added
component/helm
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR removes OWNERS files from integration-tests directories across multiple frontend packages (console-telemetry-plugin, dev-console, helm-plugin, knative-plugin, shipwright-plugin, topology, webterminal-plugin) and eliminates reviewer configurations from two additional OWNERS files (service-mesh and web-terminal features). The dev-console integration-tests README is updated to streamline the review workflow for Epic-related features from three phases to two by removing the QE Lead assignment step, and standardizes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 12✅ Passed checks (12 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md (1)
147-147: Consider naming the responsible reviewer group explicitly.“team” is a bit ambiguous at org scale; specifying “feature team” or “owning dev-console team” would reduce routing confusion.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md` at line 147, Update the ambiguous reviewer label in the README line "Review by team for standardization [Peer Review]" to explicitly name the responsible group (e.g., "Review by owning dev-console team [Peer Review]" or "Review by feature team X [Peer Review]") so it's clear who should perform the peer review; edit the string in the README entry accordingly to reflect the chosen reviewer group.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md`:
- Line 134: Replace the grammatically incorrect sentence "Epic related feature
files needs to reviewed in 2 phases" with a clear, hyphenated and corrected
version such as "Epic-related feature files need to be reviewed in two phases."
Update the README line that contains that sentence (search for the exact phrase
"Epic related feature files needs to reviewed in 2 phases") to use the corrected
wording and numeral-to-word change for clarity.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md`:
- Line 147: Update the ambiguous reviewer label in the README line "Review by
team for standardization [Peer Review]" to explicitly name the responsible group
(e.g., "Review by owning dev-console team [Peer Review]" or "Review by feature
team X [Peer Review]") so it's clear who should perform the peer review; edit
the string in the README entry accordingly to reflect the chosen reviewer group.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository YAML (base), Central YAML (inherited)
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 8a5b4866-1454-4fe9-88f6-b3b68d135599
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
frontend/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/console-telemetry-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.mdfrontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/features/service-mesh/OWNERSfrontend/packages/helm-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/knative-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/shipwright-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/topology/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/webterminal-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERSfrontend/packages/webterminal-plugin/integration-tests/features/web-terminal/OWNERS
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (10)
- frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/features/service-mesh/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/topology/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/helm-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/webterminal-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/shipwright-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/webterminal-plugin/integration-tests/features/web-terminal/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/console-telemetry-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/OWNERS
- frontend/packages/knative-plugin/integration-tests/OWNERS
📜 Review details
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md
[grammar] ~134-~134: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...rocess ### Feature files Review - Epic related feature files needs to reviewed ...
(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)
[uncategorized] ~145-~145: The official name of this software platform is spelled with a capital “H”.
Context: ...eer Review] ### Code Review Process - Github adds a reviewer automatically for the P...
(GITHUB)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md (3)
141-141: No additional concerns beyond the wording note already raised for the same phrasing pattern.
136-136: Workflow update looks good for post-QE ownership cleanup.This keeps peer review guidance intact while decoupling from legacy QE-specific routing.
238-238: Great standardization change on lint enforcement.Running
yarn run gherkin-lintfor every PR is a solid consistency improvement.
| ### Feature files Review | ||
|
|
||
| - Epic related feature files needs to reviewed in 3 phases | ||
| - Epic related feature files needs to reviewed in 2 phases |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix grammar in Epic workflow line to avoid process ambiguity.
Line 134 currently has grammatical errors (“needs to reviewed”) and missing hyphenation (“Epic-related”), which makes the review workflow less clear.
Suggested wording
-- Epic related feature files needs to reviewed in 2 phases
+- Epic-related feature files need to be reviewed in 2 phases📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - Epic related feature files needs to reviewed in 2 phases | |
| - Epic-related feature files need to be reviewed in 2 phases |
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~134-~134: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ...rocess ### Feature files Review - Epic related feature files needs to reviewed ...
(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@frontend/packages/dev-console/integration-tests/README.md` at line 134,
Replace the grammatically incorrect sentence "Epic related feature files needs
to reviewed in 2 phases" with a clear, hyphenated and corrected version such as
"Epic-related feature files need to be reviewed in two phases." Update the
README line that contains that sentence (search for the exact phrase "Epic
related feature files needs to reviewed in 2 phases") to use the corrected
wording and numeral-to-word change for clarity.
cajieh
force-pushed
the
remove-old-qe-team-from-repo
branch
2 times, most recently
from
37707da to
bf0d97f
Compare
Remove integration-tests OWNERS files that listed legacy QE reviewers and approvers for Cypress paths. Update dev-console integration-tests README review wording to match generic team review (and fix grammar). Aligns with removing old QE team ownership from the console repo. Made-with: Cursor
cajieh
force-pushed
the
remove-old-qe-team-from-repo
branch
from
bf0d97f to
be5641d
Compare
|
@cajieh: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
2 participants
CONSOLE-5203 - Remove old QE team from our repos
Analysis / Root cause:
Cleanup: Remove old QE team from our repos
Solution description:
Cleanup: Remove old QE team and other unused usernames from the repo.
Screenshots / screen recording:
N/A
Test setup:
N/A
Test cases:
N/A
Reviewers and assignees:
Console Approver:
/assign @jhadvig
Docs approver:
/assign N/A
PX approver:
/assign N/A
-->
Summary by CodeRabbit