Files
paperclip/.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs
T
Devin Foley d5889919a9 feat(commitperclip): widen linked-issue gate, add dedup-search check (#7632)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Contributor onboarding leans on a small set of CI gates
("commitperclip") that read PR metadata and enforce the rules in
CONTRIBUTING.md
> - We recently landed two new contributor rules: every PR must either
link an existing issue or inline an issue-template-shaped description,
and the author must affirm they searched for duplicate PRs first
> - The existing `check-pr-linked-issue` gate only accepted
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and there was no gate at all for the
dedup-search affirmation, so the new rules were unenforced
> - This pull request widens the linked-issue gate (accept `Refs #N`,
accept inline template-shaped descriptions) and adds a new dedup-search
gate wired into `run-quality-gates`
> - The benefit is that the rules we ask contributors to follow are now
mechanically enforced, lowering review noise without raising contributor
friction

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #4260 — the PR cited in the original rule discussion, whose body is
the canonical example of the inline-issue-description shape this gate
now accepts.

**Problem or motivation**

The repo recently adopted two contributor rules: (1) link the issue your
PR fixes or inline a description in the issue-template shape, and (2)
confirm you searched for duplicate PRs before opening one. Neither rule
was enforced — the existing linked-issue check only matched
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and nothing looked for the dedup-search
affirmation. Reviewers had to remember and re-state the rules by hand on
every PR.

**Proposed solution**

Widen `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs` and add a new
`check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` so commitperclip enforces the rules already
documented in CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template:

- Accept `Refs #N` as a valid link verb alongside `Fixes`, `Closes`,
`Resolves`.
- Accept a PR body with an inline issue-template-shaped description (≥3
fields matched against the bug, feature, or adapter templates) as a
valid alternative to a linked issue.
- New `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` looks for a checked checkbox affirming
the author searched for similar/duplicate/prior PRs, wired into
`run-quality-gates.mjs` with the same skip/override semantics as the
other gates.

**Alternatives considered**

- A single regex over the whole PR body looking for issue-template field
names — rejected, too brittle and gave no useful error message when it
failed. The per-field counter lets us tell the author exactly how many
template fields we matched and which template they're closest to.
- Making the dedup-search check live inside `check-pr-linked-issue` —
rejected, the two rules are orthogonal and a separate gate gives a
cleaner error message and respects `[skip-quality-gates]` independently.

**Roadmap alignment**

This is contributor-workflow plumbing for rules that already landed on
`master`. It is not a roadmap feature and does not overlap with planned
core work.

## What Changed

- `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`: accept `Refs #N`; add
`hasInlineIssueDescription` (per-template field counter, ≥3 fields) so a
fully inlined description satisfies the gate.
- `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs`: new gate, looks for a checked
dedup-search checkbox in the PR body, with clear failure guidance.
- `run-quality-gates.mjs`: wire the new gate in alongside the existing
checks.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: "Before You Start: Search First" callout pointing
at the PR-template checkbox the gate enforces.
- Tests: unit tests for `Refs #N`, the inline-description threshold
(bolded labels, plain labels, headings), and the dedup-search gate
across checked/unchecked/missing/skip-prefix paths.

## Verification

- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-linked-issue.test.mjs` →
all pass
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-dedup-search.test.mjs` →
all pass
- Full repo test matrix: 116/116 pass locally

For the gate itself, this PR exercises both new code paths: the body
inlines a feature-template-shaped description with ≥3 matched fields,
and the dedup-search checkbox below is checked.

## Risks

Low risk. The change is contributor-CI plumbing — no runtime or
migration impact. The widened linked-issue gate is strictly more
permissive (it can only flip prior FAILs to PASS), and the new
dedup-search gate honors the existing `[skip-quality-gates]` prefix, so
an author can always bypass it the same way as the other gates if
needed.

## Model Used

Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended-thinking enabled, tool use
for filesystem + shell.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-06-05 22:10:52 -07:00

124 lines
4.3 KiB
JavaScript

#!/usr/bin/env node
/**
* check-pr-linked-issue.mjs
* Checks that a PR body either links an existing issue/PR or inlines an
* issue-template-shaped description. Respects conventional commit prefixes —
* skips check for docs/chore/build/ci/style/test/revert prefixed PRs.
*
* Exports:
* checkLinkedIssue(prBody, prTitle) → { passed, failures }
* hasInlineIssueDescription(prBody) → boolean
*/
import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url';
const ISSUE_PATTERNS = [
/(?:fixes|closes|resolves|refs)\s+#\d+/i,
/(?:^|[\s(])https:\/\/github\.com\/paperclipai\/paperclip\/issues\/\d+(?=$|[\s),:;!?]|[.](?![\w-]))/i,
/(?<!\w)#\d+/,
];
// Prefixes where neither a linked issue nor an inline description is required
const SKIP_ISSUE_PREFIXES = ['docs', 'chore', 'build', 'ci', 'style', 'test', 'revert'];
// Minimum number of template fields the PR body must match to count as an
// inline issue description.
const INLINE_DESCRIPTION_MIN_FIELDS = 3;
// Per-template field labels. Each field is an array of accepted variants; the
// field counts as "present" if any variant appears as a markdown heading
// (`## Label`) or as a bolded/plain label on its own line (`**Label**` /
// `Label:`). Matching is case-insensitive.
const TEMPLATE_FIELDS = {
bug: [
['What happened', 'What happened?'],
['Expected behavior', 'Expected behaviour'],
['Steps to reproduce', 'Reproduction steps', 'Repro steps'],
['Paperclip version', 'Paperclip version or commit', 'Version or commit', 'Version/commit'],
['Deployment mode'],
],
feature: [
['Problem or motivation', 'Problem', 'Motivation'],
['Proposed solution', 'Solution'],
['Alternatives considered', 'Alternatives'],
['Roadmap alignment', 'Roadmap'],
],
adapter: [
['Agent or provider', 'Agent', 'Provider', 'Adapter'],
["Why this adapter is useful", "Why it's useful", 'Why useful', 'Use case'],
['How the agent is invoked', 'How it is invoked', "How it's invoked", 'Invocation'],
],
};
function escapeRegExp(s) {
return s.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\$&');
}
function countMatchedFields(body, fieldSet) {
let matched = 0;
for (const variants of fieldSet) {
const hasMatch = variants.some(label => {
const esc = escapeRegExp(label);
// Accept markdown headings or bolded/plain labels on their own line.
// Examples: "## What happened?", "**Expected behavior**", "Problem:".
const pattern = new RegExp(
`^\\s*(?:#{1,6}\\s+|\\*\\*\\s*|__\\s*)?${esc}(?:\\s*[:?])?(?:\\s*\\*\\*|\\s*__)?\\s*$`,
'im'
);
return pattern.test(body);
});
if (hasMatch) matched += 1;
}
return matched;
}
export function hasInlineIssueDescription(body) {
if (!body || !body.trim()) return false;
for (const fieldSet of Object.values(TEMPLATE_FIELDS)) {
if (countMatchedFields(body, fieldSet) >= INLINE_DESCRIPTION_MIN_FIELDS) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function parsePrefix(title) {
if (!title) return null;
const match = title.match(/^([a-z]+)(?:\([^)]*\))?:/);
return match ? match[1].toLowerCase() : null;
}
export function checkLinkedIssue(body, prTitle = '') {
const prefix = parsePrefix(prTitle);
if (prefix && SKIP_ISSUE_PREFIXES.includes(prefix)) {
return { passed: true, failures: [] };
}
if (!body || !body.trim()) {
return { passed: false, failures: ['PR body is empty — please fill out the PR template'] };
}
const linked = ISSUE_PATTERNS.some(p => p.test(body));
const inlined = hasInlineIssueDescription(body);
const passed = linked || inlined;
return {
passed,
failures: passed ? [] : [
'No linked issue or inline issue description found — either tag an existing issue ' +
'with `Fixes #NNN` / `Closes #NNN` / `Refs #NNN`, or describe the underlying issue ' +
'inline in the PR body following one of our issue templates ' +
'(https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/tree/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE). ' +
'See CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR".',
],
};
}
if (process.argv[1] === fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)) {
const body = process.env.PR_BODY ?? '';
const title = process.env.PR_TITLE ?? '';
const result = checkLinkedIssue(body, title);
console.log(JSON.stringify(result));
process.exit(result.passed ? 0 : 1);
}