Skip to content

triage: align control labels with pipeline usage, rename type/feature to feature - #1039

Merged
ralphbean merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
fix/triage-control-labels
May 19, 2026
Merged

triage: align control labels with pipeline usage, rename type/feature to feature#1039
ralphbean merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
fix/triage-control-labels

Conversation

@ralphbean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

Context

Observed in run 25940860598: the triage agent categorized #1032 as feature, the post script applied triaged but not type/feature, and the agent's label_actions attempt to add type/feature and ready-to-code were both refused as control labels. The ready-to-code refusal was correct (feature issues shouldn't auto-promote), but type/feature was a gap — the pipeline claimed ownership of the label but never applied it.

Test plan

  • post-triage-test.sh — all 34 tests pass (2 new: sufficient-feature-gets-feature-label, label-actions-feature-control-label-refused)
  • make lint passes
  • No remaining references to type/feature, not-ready, or not-reproducible in scaffold

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

… to feature

Remove not-ready and not-reproducible from control labels — no code path
ever applied them. not-ready is redundant with needs-info; not-reproducible
is tracked for future implementation in #1036/#1037.

Rename type/feature to feature to match the schema's category enum and
the existing pattern (the bug category doesn't use type/bug). Add
explicit feature case in post-triage.sh that applies both the feature
and triaged labels, closing the gap where pre-triage stripped
type/feature but post-triage never re-applied it.

Aligned across pre-triage.sh, post-triage.sh, dispatch.yml, and the
issue-labels skill. Added tests for the new feature label application
and control label refusal.

Assisted-by: Claude claude-opus-4-6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Ralph Bean <rbean@redhat.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented May 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Site preview

Preview: https://efe63c68-site.fullsend-ai.workers.dev

Commit: 5b462236839e6b15f148bc27d6a3574844e0486b

@fullsend-ai-review

fullsend-ai-review Bot commented May 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review

Findings

Medium

  • [protected-path] .github/workflows/reusable-dispatch.yml — This file is under the .github/ protected path. The change is correct (renaming type/featurefeature to match the scaffold), and the PR description provides clear rationale. Human approval is required for all protected-path modifications regardless of correctness.

Low

  • [docs-currency] docs/ADRs/0002-initial-fullsend-design.md — This ADR (status: Proposed) still contains references to not-ready, not-reproducible, and type/feature in the labels table, decision paths, and Mermaid diagram nodes. Since the ADR is still in "Proposed" status, it could be updated to reflect the simplified label set, or the divergence can be accepted as historical context.
    Remediation: Consider updating the ADR labels to match the current pipeline, or accept the divergence and note it when the ADR is finalized.
Previous run

Review

Findings

Medium

  • [protected-path] .github/workflows/reusable-dispatch.yml — This file is under the .github/ protected path. The change itself is correct (renaming type/feature to feature to match the scaffold), but human approval is required for all protected-path modifications regardless of correctness.

  • [docs-currency] docs/guides/user/bugfix-workflow.md:21-22,46-47,106-107 — User-facing documentation still references not-ready and not-reproducible labels in the workflow diagram (lines 21-22), the labels table (lines 46-47), and the triage behavior description (lines 106-107). These labels are being removed from the pipeline, making the docs misleading for users.
    Remediation: Remove not-ready and not-reproducible from the workflow diagram, labels table, and triage description. Replace with the current behavior (needs-info covers insufficient information; reproduction failures tracked via triage agent: add 'not-reproducible' action for issues that cannot be reproduced #1036/triage post-script: add not-reproducible label application when action is implemented #1037).

Low

  • [docs-currency] docs/ADRs/0002-initial-fullsend-design.md — This ADR (status: Proposed) contains multiple references to not-ready, not-reproducible, and type/feature including Mermaid diagram nodes. Since the ADR is still in "Proposed" status rather than "Accepted", it could be updated to reflect the simplified label set.
    Remediation: Consider updating the ADR or accept the divergence as historical context.
Previous run (2)

Review

Findings

Medium

  • [protected-path] .github/workflows/reusable-dispatch.yml — This file is under the .github/ protected path. The change itself is correct (renaming type/feature to feature to match the scaffold), but human approval is required for all protected-path modifications regardless of correctness.

  • [docs-currency] docs/guides/user/bugfix-workflow.md:21-22,46-47,106-107 — User-facing documentation still references not-ready and not-reproducible labels in the workflow diagram (lines 21-22), the labels table (lines 46-47), and the triage behavior description (lines 106-107). These labels are being removed from the pipeline, making the docs misleading for users.
    Remediation: Remove not-ready and not-reproducible from the workflow diagram, labels table, and triage description. Replace with the current behavior (needs-info covers insufficient information; reproduction failures tracked via triage agent: add 'not-reproducible' action for issues that cannot be reproduced #1036/triage post-script: add not-reproducible label application when action is implemented #1037).

Low

  • [docs-currency] docs/ADRs/0002-initial-fullsend-design.md — This ADR (status: Proposed) contains multiple references to not-ready, not-reproducible, and type/feature including Mermaid diagram nodes. Since the ADR is still in "Proposed" status rather than "Accepted", it could be updated to reflect the simplified label set.
    Remediation: Consider updating the ADR or accept the divergence as historical context.
Previous run (3)

Review

Findings

High

  • [correctness] internal/scaffold/scaffold_test.go:200 — The assertion assert.Contains(t, s, "type/feature") will fail because the scaffolded dispatch.yml now uses feature instead of type/feature. This test was not updated with the rename.
    Remediation: Update the assertion to match the new label name. Note that "feature" is a substring of "type/feature" so the old assertion would have matched either — but now the literal type/feature no longer exists in the scaffold. Change to assert.Contains(t, s, "\"feature\"") or a more specific pattern like ! has_label "feature" to avoid false positives from unrelated occurrences of the word "feature".

Medium

  • [correctness] .github/workflows/reusable-dispatch.yml:142 — This file still references type/feature in the auto-triage guard (! has_label "type/feature"). The PR updated the scaffold copy (internal/scaffold/fullsend-repo/.github/workflows/dispatch.yml) but missed the reusable workflow that runs in the fullsend repo itself. The PR description states changes were "aligned across... dispatch.yml" but this file was not included.
    Remediation: Update line 142 to use ! has_label "feature" to match the scaffold version.

  • [docs-currency] docs/guides/user/bugfix-workflow.md:21-22,46-47,106-107 — User-facing documentation still references not-ready and not-reproducible labels in the workflow diagram (lines 21-22), the labels table (lines 46-47), and the triage behavior description (lines 106-107). These labels are being removed from the pipeline, making the docs misleading for users.
    Remediation: Remove not-ready and not-reproducible from the workflow diagram, labels table, and triage description. Replace with the current behavior (needs-info covers insufficient information; reproduction failures tracked via triage agent: add 'not-reproducible' action for issues that cannot be reproduced #1036/triage post-script: add not-reproducible label application when action is implemented #1037).

Low

  • [docs-currency] docs/ADRs/0002-initial-fullsend-design.md — This ADR (status: Proposed) contains multiple references to not-ready, not-reproducible, and type/feature including Mermaid diagram nodes. Since the ADR is still in "Proposed" status rather than "Accepted", it could be updated to reflect the simplified label set.
    Remediation: Consider updating the ADR or accept the divergence as historical context.

… rename

The scaffold copy was updated but the reusable workflow and its test
assertion still referenced type/feature.

Caught by review bot on #1039.

Assisted-by: Claude claude-opus-4-6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Ralph Bean <rbean@redhat.com>
@waynesun09

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/fs-review

@fullsend-ai-review fullsend-ai-review Bot added requires-manual-review Review requires human judgment and removed requires-manual-review Review requires human judgment labels May 15, 2026
Remove references to not-ready and not-reproducible labels that no
longer exist in the pipeline. Replace with needs-info which is what
the triage agent actually applies. Add feature and triaged labels to
the table since they are now part of the pipeline. Remove the
"attempts reproduction" step which is tracked for future implementation
in #1036/#1037.

Addresses review finding [docs-currency] on PR #1039.

Assisted-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Ralph Bean <rbean@redhat.com>
@ralphbean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Checked #1017 (per-agent reference docs) — its label references already use needs-info, triaged, feature, etc. No conflicts with this change.

@ralphbean

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/fs-review

@fullsend-ai-review fullsend-ai-review Bot added requires-manual-review Review requires human judgment and removed requires-manual-review Review requires human judgment labels May 15, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

requires-manual-review Review requires human judgment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants