jira issue filling rules

[Dmitriy Govorukhin]

Hi folks,

Recently time ago, I noticed that many Jira issues created and filled in
different ways,
so someone does not fill issue description, someone does not attach links
in the links section instead, add links to comments and etc.
I want to star discussion regards to Jira issue filling rules.

I suggest,

The name should include a short description problem
The description should contain:
(if bug) *Steps to reproduce* (java reproducer) or TC link to failed tests.
(if feature) *Idea and solution*
PR should start with IGNITE-**** (JIRA bot automatically link your PR with
JIRA Issue)
TC link should be in the* links section, *link name example: TC Run all |
 TC Run pds | TC {suit name}
Upsource link should be in the* links section* (optional, if some reviewer
needs),
link name example: IGNT-CR-*** or CR-***
All discussions related code should be in JIRA issue comments or Upsource
review
When you answer someone use @username for Upsource or ~username for JIRA

Comments are welcome!

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

++1 from my side, as always.

I want to add GitHub as a possible place of discussion, but any place we've
selected to run review should be mentioned in JIRA ticket. E.g., I left a
couple of comments in PR; please take a look.

вс, 7 окт. 2018 г. в 18:01, Dmitriy Govorukhin <[hidden email]
>:

> Hi folks,
>
> Recently time ago, I noticed that many Jira issues created and filled in
> different ways,
> so someone does not fill issue description, someone does not attach links
> in the links section instead, add links to comments and etc.
> I want to star discussion regards to Jira issue filling rules.
>
> I suggest,
>
> The name should include a short description problem
> The description should contain:
> (if bug) *Steps to reproduce* (java reproducer) or TC link to failed tests.
> (if feature) *Idea and solution*
> PR should start with IGNITE-**** (JIRA bot automatically link your PR with
> JIRA Issue)
> TC link should be in the* links section, *link name example: TC Run all |
>  TC Run pds | TC {suit name}
> Upsource link should be in the* links section* (optional, if some reviewer
> needs),
> link name example: IGNT-CR-*** or CR-***
> All discussions related code should be in JIRA issue comments or Upsource
> review
> When you answer someone use @username for Upsource or ~username for JIRA
>
> Comments are welcome!
>

[Mmuzaf]

Dmitry,

I fully support you!

It's never too much remind these simple rules. It's not obvious at first
glance but placing comment
'why' and 'how' particular JIRA issue was done will help much for the
further code investigations.

I'm not sure that pinning `link` to the TC result is a good practice. It
becomes obsolete too quickly.
Having the TC.Bot visa with ~no blockers found~ and the brief description
of implementation details should be enough.

Thoughts?

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ++1 from my side, as always.
>
> I want to add GitHub as a possible place of discussion, but any place we've
> selected to run review should be mentioned in JIRA ticket. E.g., I left a
> couple of comments in PR; please take a look.
>
> вс, 7 окт. 2018 г. в 18:01, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> [hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Recently time ago, I noticed that many Jira issues created and filled in
> > different ways,
> > so someone does not fill issue description, someone does not attach links
> > in the links section instead, add links to comments and etc.
> > I want to star discussion regards to Jira issue filling rules.
> >
> > I suggest,
> >
> > The name should include a short description problem
> > The description should contain:
> > (if bug) *Steps to reproduce* (java reproducer) or TC link to failed
> tests.
> > (if feature) *Idea and solution*
> > PR should start with IGNITE-**** (JIRA bot automatically link your PR
> with
> > JIRA Issue)
> > TC link should be in the* links section, *link name example: TC Run all |
> >  TC Run pds | TC {suit name}
> > Upsource link should be in the* links section* (optional, if some
> reviewer
> > needs),
> > link name example: IGNT-CR-*** or CR-***
> > All discussions related code should be in JIRA issue comments or Upsource
> > review
> > When you answer someone use @username for Upsource or ~username for JIRA
> >
> > Comments are welcome!
> >
>

--
--
Maxim Muzafarov

[daradurvs]

Hi Igniters,

Dmitriy Govorukhin, the naming of GitHub PR [1] and Upsource review
[2] already described in the wiki.

About the naming of Jira issue, I'd suggest adding rules in related
part [3] in the wiki.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-Creation
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
[3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dmitry,
>
> I fully support you!
>
> It's never too much remind these simple rules. It's not obvious at first
> glance but placing comment
> 'why' and 'how' particular JIRA issue was done will help much for the
> further code investigations.
>
> I'm not sure that pinning `link` to the TC result is a good practice. It
> becomes obsolete too quickly.
> Having the TC.Bot visa with ~no blockers found~ and the brief description
> of implementation details should be enough.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ++1 from my side, as always.
> >
> > I want to add GitHub as a possible place of discussion, but any place we've
> > selected to run review should be mentioned in JIRA ticket. E.g., I left a
> > couple of comments in PR; please take a look.
> >
> > вс, 7 окт. 2018 г. в 18:01, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Recently time ago, I noticed that many Jira issues created and filled in
> > > different ways,
> > > so someone does not fill issue description, someone does not attach links
> > > in the links section instead, add links to comments and etc.
> > > I want to star discussion regards to Jira issue filling rules.
> > >
> > > I suggest,
> > >
> > > The name should include a short description problem
> > > The description should contain:
> > > (if bug) *Steps to reproduce* (java reproducer) or TC link to failed
> > tests.
> > > (if feature) *Idea and solution*
> > > PR should start with IGNITE-**** (JIRA bot automatically link your PR
> > with
> > > JIRA Issue)
> > > TC link should be in the* links section, *link name example: TC Run all |
> > >  TC Run pds | TC {suit name}
> > > Upsource link should be in the* links section* (optional, if some
> > reviewer
> > > needs),
> > > link name example: IGNT-CR-*** or CR-***
> > > All discussions related code should be in JIRA issue comments or Upsource
> > > review
> > > When you answer someone use @username for Upsource or ~username for JIRA
> > >
> > > Comments are welcome!
> > >
> >
> --
> --
> Maxim Muzafarov

--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

[Dmitriy Govorukhin]

Vyacheslav,
Thanks for links, I just wanted to remind these rules for all. Not all
Igniters use these rules in work.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> Dmitriy Govorukhin, the naming of GitHub PR [1] and Upsource review
> [2] already described in the wiki.
>
> About the naming of Jira issue, I'd suggest adding rules in related
> part [3] in the wiki.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-Creation
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > I fully support you!
> >
> > It's never too much remind these simple rules. It's not obvious at first
> > glance but placing comment
> > 'why' and 'how' particular JIRA issue was done will help much for the
> > further code investigations.
> >
> > I'm not sure that pinning `link` to the TC result is a good practice. It
> > becomes obsolete too quickly.
> > Having the TC.Bot visa with ~no blockers found~ and the brief description
> > of implementation details should be enough.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:53 Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > ++1 from my side, as always.
> > >
> > > I want to add GitHub as a possible place of discussion, but any place
> we've
> > > selected to run review should be mentioned in JIRA ticket. E.g., I
> left a
> > > couple of comments in PR; please take a look.
> > >
> > > вс, 7 окт. 2018 г. в 18:01, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Recently time ago, I noticed that many Jira issues created and
> filled in
> > > > different ways,
> > > > so someone does not fill issue description, someone does not attach
> links
> > > > in the links section instead, add links to comments and etc.
> > > > I want to star discussion regards to Jira issue filling rules.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest,
> > > >
> > > > The name should include a short description problem
> > > > The description should contain:
> > > > (if bug) *Steps to reproduce* (java reproducer) or TC link to failed
> > > tests.
> > > > (if feature) *Idea and solution*
> > > > PR should start with IGNITE-**** (JIRA bot automatically link your PR
> > > with
> > > > JIRA Issue)
> > > > TC link should be in the* links section, *link name example: TC Run
> all |
> > > >  TC Run pds | TC {suit name}
> > > > Upsource link should be in the* links section* (optional, if some
> > > reviewer
> > > > needs),
> > > > link name example: IGNT-CR-*** or CR-***
> > > > All discussions related code should be in JIRA issue comments or
> Upsource
> > > > review
> > > > When you answer someone use @username for Upsource or ~username for
> JIRA
> > > >
> > > > Comments are welcome!
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > --
> > Maxim Muzafarov
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>