Last year, we used the Identify Web Features in Issues action (workflow source, script source) to relate focus area proposals to one or more web-features.
This was useful, and we want to do it again for Interop 2027.
This issue is here to discuss about the things that are worth improving in the action before we run it again this year.
I reviewed most of the focus area proposals from last year, searching for cases where the action didn't work quite right. Here are my findings of the common issues:
In many of the above cases, someone (either the author or somebody with write access) added (or corrected) the feature ID in the opening comment after the issue had been filed. However, the script doesn't run again when that's the case. So we're stuck with the incorrect feature.
Last year, we used the Identify Web Features in Issues action (workflow source, script source) to relate focus area proposals to one or more web-features.
This was useful, and we want to do it again for Interop 2027.
This issue is here to discuss about the things that are worth improving in the action before we run it again this year.
I reviewed most of the focus area proposals from last year, searching for cases where the action didn't work quite right. Here are my findings of the common issues:
Missing web-features ID (or other piece of information we use to identify features) in the proposal:
Sometimes, the author didn't know or bother.
Sometimes, The proposal was not a web-feature (e.g. a list of WPT tests from a particular area, or an investigation area).
Often, the web-features entry didn't exist yet, so the author couldn't add it.
Sometimes, the author, or somebody else, added the web-features ID later, after the proposal was created.
Action found an incorrect feature:
Sometimes the proposal was about a very specific addition to an existing feature, but the action found the more general, parent feature instead.
Sometimes the author entered the wrong feature ID, because we didn't have a feature for their proposal yet:
xsltwas found for a proposal about XSLT 3.0, because we don't have a feature for XSLT 3.0 yet.active-view-transitionwas found for a proposal about View Transitions Types, because we don't have a feature for that yet.navigationwas found for a proposal about navigation precommit handlers, because we didn't have a feature for it yet (we do now:navigation-precommit-handlers).Sometimes the author entered the wrong feature ID, because they couldn't find the right one:
reportingfeature was used instead ofpermissions-policybecause the author couldn't find the right ID at the time.In many of the above cases, someone (either the author or somebody with write access) added (or corrected) the feature ID in the opening comment after the issue had been filed. However, the script doesn't run again when that's the case. So we're stuck with the incorrect feature.