feat: add archive label and active status to ReviewModel #242
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #242 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.06% 74.85% +0.78%
==========================================
Files 10 10
Lines 671 692 +21
Branches 82 84 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 497 518 +21
Misses 166 166
Partials 8 8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@banesullivan this pr works well! let's do the following
✅ please add more detailed docstrings to overdocument our process here.
✅ please update the changelog in this pr
✅ make sure that we have full test coverage for this pr - there are a few gaps right now according to code cov output.
i'll then review again. essentially when this is good to go (it's really close!!) we can merge it and the website repo and the documentation updates to our peer review guide.
Separately (new work in a document) i think we should work together on a hackmd that documents this entire process a bit better. (this is a separate task but one i don't want to forget to do!)
| @@ -69,6 +76,17 @@ class Labels(BaseModel): | |||
| description: Optional[str] = None | |||
| color: Optional[str] = None | |||
| default: Optional[bool] = None | |||
| type: Optional[LabelType] = None | |||
|
|
|||
| @model_validator(mode="before") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's been so long since i've dug into this code. let's flesh out the docstrings while this is still fresh.
can you please add a second "paragraph" that better describes what we are actually parsing here and why as a reminder (for me an our future selves)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I clarified the docstrings in b9868eb
src/pyosmeta/parse_issues.py
Outdated
| @@ -221,6 +221,25 @@ def _postprocess_meta(self, meta: dict, body: List[str]) -> dict: | |||
|
|
|||
| return meta | |||
|
|
|||
| def _postprocess_labels(self, meta: dict) -> dict: | |||
| """ | |||
| Handle specific labels that are model properties | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please be more specific with the docstrings. Essentially this package can be hard to "dig back into" so let's be specific about what this helper does since we don't have great docs for the package yet.
Let's be specific about it's purpose in the docstring
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I clarified the docstrings in b9868eb
src/pyosmeta/parse_issues.py
Outdated
| Handle specific labels that are model properties | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| def _is_archived(label: str) -> bool: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a super explicit name but i think for the purposes of documenting process, over-documenting via docstrings is a good idea here. so let's add numpy docstrings with very clear descriptions of intent to each of these.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a docstring in b9868eb
| # Now add an archive label | ||
| label_inst = Labels( | ||
| id=1196238794, | ||
| node_id="MDU6TGFiZWwxMTk2MjM4Nzk0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Codecov is noticing some test gaps - can you please ensure that we have full coverage via this pr?
For pyOpenSci/pyopensci.github.io#320
This adds a new
active: bool = Truefield to theReviewModelclass to track whether a package/review is archived or not. All reviews default to anactive=Truestatus and are only set toactive=Falseif thearchivedlabel is applied to the original review.In tandem with these changes, I've added a new "archived" label in the software-submissions repository. You can view this label and currently archived packages here: https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission/issues?q=label%3Aarchived
If that specific label is applied to a review, then each time the pyosMeta
update-reviewsroutine is run, it will discover that and set theactivestatus toFalse