Stale action should not process issues

[hugovk]

Re:

• https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/.github/workflows/stale.yml
• https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/workflows/stale.yml

The CLA [not] signed label handling has been removed because the new CLA bot doesn't use those labels, so it now won't close any stale PRs: python/cpython#91429.

What I wrote in #93 (comment) isn't accurate on two counts:

1. only-pr-labels doesn't restrict to processing PRs only, it overrides only-labels for PRs, and for issues it will use the only-labels default instead. Anyway, it doesn't matter because only-pr-labels was deleted in the PR.

2. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

---

Aside: One option is to also mark issues as stale, but that's another conversation. We should also figure out a way to reinstate closing old PRs that don't have the CLA signed (i.e. redo #93), that's also another conversation.

---

I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

days-before-stale: 30

into:

days-before-issue-stale: -1
days-before-pr-stale: 30

where:

If set to a negative number like -1, no issues or pull requests will be marked as stale automatically.
In that case, you can still add the stale label manually to mark as stale.

cc @erlend-aasland @ezio-melotti

[erlend-aasland]

2. More importantly, the action does also run for issues (for example: https://github.com/python/cpython/runs/5981894131?check_suite_focus=true) so we need to adjust the config

I don't see any option at https://github.com/actions/stale that says "run on PRs only"? so I think what we need to do is change:

days-before-stale: 30

into:

days-before-issue-stale: -1
days-before-pr-stale: 30

Yeah, I had a look at the docs myself, and that seems to be the correct change for this particular problem.

Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

[ezio-melotti]

As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

• pending
  • the issue/PR is invalid in its current state (e.g. not enough info, CLA not signed, etc.) and will automatically be closed after a fixed period unless the problem is addressed and the label removed
  • it can be set by both humans (e.g. on a new issue with not enough info) or bots/actions (e.g. CLA still not signed after a period of time) and it can be removed by both (bots for things like a now-signed CLA and humans for the other cases)
• stale
  • the issue/PR has seen no activity for a certain period of time
  • it should be set automatically by bots/actions and removed automatically on action

Would this work with the current workflow?

My reasoning is that:

• stale doesn't apply to new issues with not enough info, but we might want to close them automatically too
• I think we shouldn't close issues/PRs automatically just because they are stale, but we can do it if a human set them to pending

In theory we might get rid of stale altogether if pending is applied by bots/action automatically when the CLA is not signed after a certain period, and search queries can be used to search for issues that haven't been updated in a while (providing more flexiblity at the price of simplicity since you can't filter for label:stale anymore, but have to use updated:<2022-03-13)

[hugovk]

This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

As I mentioned on Discord, during the migration I kept both the stale and the pending label. My intention was to use them as follow:

...

Should we discuss this as part of a new issue or closing stale PRs?

[hugovk]

This issue is for the pressing need to prevent the current action processing issues, I've created PR python/cpython#91501 for that.

Regarding the "close-stale-prs-action": Perhaps it's worth it opening a new issue instead of re-opening #93 (that issue is pretty noisy)?

Yes, let's open a new issue for closing stale PRs.

-> #441