Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the repository’s GitHub issue templates to collect more structured information for faster triage and clearer feature scoping (per #9).
Changes:
- Expanded the bug report template with an “Environment” block (versions/OS/topology) and separated expected vs actual behavior.
- Added a component/provider checklist to the feature request template.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md | Adds structured environment fields and clarifies reproduction/expected vs actual behavior sections. |
| .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md | Adds a component/provider checklist to better categorize feature requests. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| **Component/provider** | ||
| Which area does this feature relate to? (check all that apply) | ||
| - [ ] MySQL (core sandbox functionality) | ||
| - [ ] ProxySQL (integration, deployment) | ||
| - [ ] Orchestrator (integration, deployment) | ||
| - [ ] PostgreSQL (future provider) | ||
| - [ ] Core (CLI, configuration, topology engine) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The issue/PR description mentions capturing phase scope for feature requests, but this template only asks for component/provider. Consider adding an explicit “Phase” (e.g., Phase 1/2/3) field or adjusting the wording so it matches the stated acceptance criteria and closes #9 accurately.
|
@gemini-code-assist review |
|
@claude review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request effectively refreshes the GitHub issue templates. The changes to the bug report template, such as adding a structured environment section and separating expected from actual behavior, will greatly improve the quality of bug reports. Similarly, the new component checklist in the feature request template is a welcome addition for better issue triaging. I've added a couple of minor suggestions to further enhance the information gathered by these templates.
| - Total RAM | ||
| **Hardware (if applicable)** | ||
| - Free storage: | ||
| - Total RAM: |
| - [ ] ProxySQL (integration, deployment) | ||
| - [ ] Orchestrator (integration, deployment) | ||
| - [ ] PostgreSQL (future provider) | ||
| - [ ] Core (CLI, configuration, topology engine) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To catch feature requests that don't fit into the predefined categories, consider adding an 'Other' option to the Component/provider checklist. This would also help users who are unsure where their suggestion fits.
| - [ ] Core (CLI, configuration, topology engine) | |
| - [ ] Core (CLI, configuration, topology engine) | |
| - [ ] Other (please specify) |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (8)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
d5b19ae to
407d4f7
Compare
Summary
Closes #9