-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
ci(publishing): enforce conventional commit linting on the PR name #1413
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Can you provide examples? Also, some form of documentation should be added to the README. |
The lint used links to this conventional commit format: |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1413 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.16% 71.42% +0.25%
==========================================
Files 403 411 +8
Lines 64368 66028 +1660
==========================================
+ Hits 45810 47160 +1350
- Misses 18558 18868 +310
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
BenchmarksComparisonBenchmark execution time: 2025-12-19 10:49:37 Comparing candidate commit d603f64 in PR branch Found 1 performance improvements and 12 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 44 metrics, 2 unstable metrics. scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798
scenario:sql/obfuscate_sql_string
CandidateCandidate benchmark detailsGroup 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group 8
Group 9
Group 10
Group 11
Group 12
Group 13
Group 14
Group 15
Group 16
Group 17
Group 18
Group 19
BaselineOmitted due to size. |
Artifact Size Benchmark Reportaarch64-alpine-linux-musl
aarch64-apple-darwin
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
libdatadog-x64-windows
libdatadog-x86-windows
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
x86_64-apple-darwin
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
d603f64 to
41a60e3
Compare
|
|
||
| ### Common Types | ||
|
|
||
| - **feat**: A new feature for the user |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Question: given that this is library code, where do you draw the line between "refactor" and "feat", for changes that affect APIs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My two cents: If capabilities or functionality aren't changing then it's a refactor, even if it's a breaking change for a public API because something like a function name has changed. If you add a new parameter to a function it's likely a feat.
@hoolioh Whatever we agree on should probably be documented to minimize confusion.
|
Is it compatible with jira tags (e.g. APMSP-1234 ) ? Also descriptions mentions commit message being checked but the ci seems to only check for PR name, is it enforced only for squash commit message ? |
What does this PR do?
As part of the versioning/publishing work We're at aiming at autogenerating the changelog based on PR descriptions. Therefore having a standarized format to craft the descriptions will help in that regard. In that regard this PR enforce the following restrictions:
Format
Commit messages and PR titles should follow this structure:
Common Types
Scope (Optional)
The scope provides additional context about which part of the codebase is affected:
Breaking Changes
Breaking changes should be indicated by a
!after the type/scope:Examples
Good commit messages:
feat: add support for custom metadata tagsfix(profiling): resolve deadlock in thread samplingdocs: add examples for exception trackingchore: update dependencies to latest versionstest(crashtracker): add integration tests for signal handlingPoor commit messages:
update code(not descriptive, missing type)Fixed bug(missing type format, not descriptive)WIP(not meaningful)