Automate the since updater

[NotMyFault]

The change proposed aims to automate the process of filling in since annotations to make PRs like #7239 redundant.

Testing done

A PoC is available at timja#137

Proposed changelog entries

• Entry 1: Issue, human-readable text
• […]

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples).
  • Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Maintainer checklist

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[daniel-beck]

The linked PR has messed up formatting, it should be a nested list. Additionally, the first output (before "List of commits") probably shouldn't be in the PR (or in a disclosure block, HTML comment, or similarly hidden except when debugging).

[NotMyFault]

The linked PR has messed up formatting, it should be a nested list

According to the GH forums, the best you can do to preserve a bit of formatting is
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/7240/files#diff-a5957abd073e9c3e3e614f9bf230c7779a16f3daba698c896f6756b7cb7d8f3eR21-R23

:/

probably shouldn't be in the PR

Which part do you mean in particular?

[lemeurherve]

According to the GH forums

Got a link?

[lemeurherve]

Note: updatecli can run scripts too, maybe another way to preserve formatting.

[NotMyFault]

According to the GH forums

Got a link?

https://github.com/peter-evans/create-pull-request/blob/main/docs/examples.md#setting-the-pull-request-body-from-a-file

[daniel-beck]

Which part do you mean in particular?

Everything above the quoted string is debug output generated immediately. If the script aborts, it helps determining where it failed. Everything starting from the quoted string is output intended for convenient PR use.

[timja]

worth a go, looks nice!

[timja]

Multiline strings are now documented at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-what-your-workflow-does/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#example-of-a-multiline-string

Not super clean but it works and is nicer than before.

But GitHub PR descriptions don't handle tab characters so I've turned it into a markdown list instead

@daniel-beck any thoughts now? see timja#137

[daniel-beck]

@timja "List of commits" looks good now 👍 Could you wrap the "Analyzing" bits in a <details> block as suggested in #7240 (comment)? Since this is just debug output I doubt we need to always see it.

[timja]

@timja "List of commits" looks good now 👍 Could you wrap the "Analyzing" bits in a <details> block as suggested in #7240 (comment)? Since this is just debug output I doubt we need to always see it.

If I understood you right that's been done, see timja#137