Pick reviewer who is not previous assignee when r? group #1958

xizheyin · 2025-04-24T13:06:29Z

This PR implements similar functionality to the reroll, and based on the discussion #triagebot > @rustbot reroll on zulip, it is not necessary for us to implement a separate reroll.

I optimized the logic for r? group. Each time an assignee is set, it is stored in the database, and when we use an r? group, such as r? compiler, I will take out the previously assigned reviewer from the database to avoid to assign a previous assignee.

However. the use of r? @reviewer to specify a specific assignee does not exclude the previous assignee, as this is explicitly specified.

Kobzol · 2025-04-24T13:11:55Z

Thanks for the PR! I think that we should first discuss the design though. I'm not sure if rerolling based on the diff is the most intuitive solution in all cases. If someone did r? compiler before, then rerolling should IMO select someone else from the compiler team/adhoc group, not determine the reviewer based on the file diff. We might thus have to store some per-issue data to remember that a team was previously requested for a review.

I opened a topic about this on Zulip: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/224082-triagebot/topic/.40rustbot.20reroll/with/514122139.

xizheyin · 2025-04-25T06:30:51Z

I modified the logic:
Only when r? group, we will select a reviewer that has not been previously ASSIGNED. note that this won't work with r? @username because we explicitly specify the name.

I'll comment my changes in the code.

src/handlers/assign.rs

src/handlers/assign/tests/tests_candidates.rs

ehuss · 2025-04-25T14:37:06Z

Can you please update the description with a detailed explanation of what is changing. From the title it is not clear to me what this is doing.

Kobzol

Now that I think about it, remembering the previous requested name (r? name) would be required for rustbot reroll, but it shouldn't be required at all when we are just modifying the request logic to skip the existing reviewer.

In other words, you can get the current assignee directly from the issue passed to the handler. Then we should modify the assignment logic to ignore the previous assignee if a team (not a specific user) was requested.

src/handlers/assign.rs

xizheyin · 2025-04-25T15:25:46Z

Can you please update the description with a detailed explanation of what is changing. From the title it is not clear to me what this is doing.

As discussed in #triagebot > @rustbot reroll @ 💬, I optimized the logic for r? group. Each time an assignee is set, it is stored in the database, and when we use an r? group, such as r? compiler, I will take out the previously assigned reviewer from the database to avoid to assign a previous assignee.

However. the use of r? @reviewer to specify a specific assignee does not exclude the previous assignee, as this is explicitly specified.

xizheyin · 2025-04-25T15:35:52Z

In other words, you can get the current assignee directly from the issue passed to the handler.

issue.assignees seems to only return the current assignees, it may need the database if we want to get all the previous assignees of the issue.

Kobzol · 2025-04-25T16:27:46Z

Hmm, I was thinking that we only ignore the current reviewer, not all previously assigned reviewers 🤔 I'll ask others on Zulip.

ehuss · 2025-04-25T16:32:09Z

As discussed in #triagebot > @rustbot reroll @ 💬, I optimized the logic for r? group. Each time an assignee is set, it is stored in the database, and when we use an r? group, such as r? compiler, I will take out the previously assigned reviewer from the database to avoid to assign a previous assignee.

However. the use of r? @reviewer to specify a specific assignee does not exclude the previous assignee, as this is explicitly specified.

OK, can the description be updated to include that? Or, if the design hasn't been concluded, can this be marked as a draft until it is ready?

Also, this doesn't seem like it would close #1762, would it? That seems like a different thing of the ability to say "I want triagebot to pick someone else".

Kobzol · 2025-04-25T16:33:28Z

FWIW, we have been discussing this in https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/224082-triagebot/topic/.40rustbot.20reroll/with/514415765, and me and Jieyou Xu thought that having an explicit reroll command might not be needed if we make this change to the assignment logic.

rustbot · 2025-04-25T17:08:39Z

Failed to set assignee to group: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

rustbot · 2025-04-25T17:08:40Z

Failed to set assignee to group: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

rustbot · 2025-04-25T17:08:41Z

Failed to set assignee to tgross35: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

rustbot · 2025-04-25T17:08:42Z

Failed to set assignee to reviewer: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

xizheyin · 2025-05-09T10:08:51Z

I rebase this PR to the newest version of master branch that is compatible with the latest test_candidates.rs.

Kobzol · 2025-05-11T07:39:39Z

Hi, just wanted to note that I'll be at https://rustweek.org/, so I might not be able to take a look at this for a few days, but it's at the top of my TODO list :)

xizheyin · 2025-05-11T09:03:46Z

It looks great. Have fun! I don't think the demand for this pr is so urgent.

Kobzol

Looks good, thank you. Could you please also add some tests? You could add a method to AssignCtx that will store a set of previously assigned names into the DB, and then check that these names will be ignored when expanded from a group/team, and will not be ignored when requested directly.

src/handlers/assign.rs

Kobzol · 2025-05-20T07:18:00Z

src/handlers/assign.rs

+                write!(
+                    f,
+                    "{}",
+                    REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE.replace("{username}", username)


REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE doesn't seem to contain {username}? It shouldn't need any replacement.

For more information, I add {username} in REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE, but it does not seem to matter because REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE will never show in comments, instead it could only return FindReviewerError::NoReviewer in candidate_reviewers_from_names.

I meant that we don't need to fill the username in this error message, as you said, it won't be shown in the comments.

src/handlers/assign.rs

xizheyin · 2025-05-22T13:10:48Z

Thanks for your time! No problem, I'll apply the above suggestions in the last few days when I'm free.

This commit optimized the logic for `r? group`. Each time an assignee is set, it is stored in the database, and when we use an r? group, such as `r? compiler`, it will take out the previously assigned reviewers from the database to avoid to assign a previous assignee. Signed-off-by: xizheyin <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: xizheyin <[email protected]>

xizheyin

I add three tests:

r? team, while there exists people who have not previous assigned in team
r? compiler, however, all the people in team have been previously assigned.
r? @user, regardless of whether user has been assigned or not.

xizheyin · 2025-05-24T08:00:40Z

src/handlers/assign.rs

+                write!(
+                    f,
+                    "{}",
+                    REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE.replace("{username}", username)


For more information, I add {username} in REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE, but it does not seem to matter because REVIEWER_ASSIGNED_BEFORE will never show in comments, instead it could only return FindReviewerError::NoReviewer in candidate_reviewers_from_names.

Kobzol

Thanks for the tests! Left some more comments.

src/handlers/assign.rs

src/handlers/assign/tests/tests_candidates.rs

Signed-off-by: xizheyin <[email protected]>

xizheyin · 2025-05-25T14:21:56Z

For ease of review, I added the changes to a new commit and it passed CI.

Kobzol

Thank you! Let's see how does this work in practice.

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from 8e0e906 to bb75bca Compare April 25, 2025 05:52

xizheyin changed the title ~~Add @rustbot reroll to pick a new reviewer~~ Pick reviewer which was not assigned before **only** when r? group Apr 25, 2025

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from bb75bca to 5627a3c Compare April 25, 2025 06:29

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from 5627a3c to 4c97007 Compare April 25, 2025 06:40

xizheyin commented Apr 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kobzol reviewed Apr 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/handlers/assign.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xizheyin changed the title ~~Pick reviewer which was not assigned before **only** when r? group~~ Pick reviewer who is not previous assignee when r? group Apr 25, 2025

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch 5 times, most recently from cbbb5af to b0574b6 Compare May 9, 2025 09:43

xizheyin marked this pull request as draft May 9, 2025 09:47

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch 2 times, most recently from bb063a7 to 5692b37 Compare May 9, 2025 10:04

xizheyin marked this pull request as ready for review May 9, 2025 10:07

Kobzol reviewed May 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from 5692b37 to 4a2c3bc Compare May 24, 2025 06:43

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch 2 times, most recently from e5f03bd to 4a4ba37 Compare May 24, 2025 07:51

Add tests for previous assigned reviewers

fcfc57e

Signed-off-by: xizheyin <[email protected]>

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from 4a4ba37 to fcfc57e Compare May 24, 2025 07:55

xizheyin commented May 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kobzol reviewed May 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/handlers/assign.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/handlers/assign/tests/tests_candidates.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix nits

f56e596

Signed-off-by: xizheyin <[email protected]>

xizheyin force-pushed the reroll branch from d443e7f to f56e596 Compare May 25, 2025 14:20

Kobzol approved these changes May 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kobzol added this pull request to the merge queue May 26, 2025

Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 874e154 May 26, 2025
3 checks passed

ehuss mentioned this pull request May 26, 2025

add "bors reroll" #1762

Open

Pick reviewer who is not previous assignee when r? group #1958

Pick reviewer who is not previous assignee when r? group #1958

Uh oh!

Conversation

xizheyin commented Apr 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kobzol commented Apr 24, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ehuss commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Kobzol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Kobzol commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

ehuss commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Kobzol commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Apr 25, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented May 9, 2025

Uh oh!

Kobzol commented May 11, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented May 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Kobzol left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kobzol May 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xizheyin May 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kobzol May 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented May 22, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xizheyin May 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kobzol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented May 25, 2025

Uh oh!

xizheyin commented Apr 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kobzol left a comment •

edited

Loading