d5889919a9
## 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>
124 lines
4.3 KiB
JavaScript
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);
|
|
}
|