On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:00 PM Lenz Grimmer <lgrimmer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/13/18 1:08 PM, Alfredo Deza wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM Lenz Grimmer <lgrimmer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ken, > >> > >> On 11/12/18 10:02 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > >> > >>> Sometimes we have multiple PRs that end up fixing one issue. Can we > >>> make this field handle that? > >> > >> Is that a very common case? Right now, this field only accepts a single > >> number. If multiple PRs fix the same issue, the issue may be a bit too > >> broad in scope and could be broken up into subtasks instead? > > > > We do this all the time in ceph-volume. > > Then I'm afraid that this new field won't be very useful for you - it > can only store one PR ID. I could not find a way to add a custom field > that expects multiple values while maintaining a way to convert them > into a clickable URL. > > >> Otherwise, it's still possible to mention additional PRs in the comment > >> section (as it's currently done). > > > > This is what we currently do. Which is not ideal > > I see. I currently cannot offer a solution other than suggesting to > either split up the issue into subtasks that map to the corresponding > PRs, or to continue mentioning additional PRs in the comments :/ I think part of the problem domain here isn't just bugs that deliberately take up multiple PRs, but bugs where the first fix is incorrect or incomplete and needs to be amended by a later patch. There's been a bit of trouble backporting things when those get missed. :/ It looks like the PR is an integer field and there's a "Link values to URL" pattern you can fill in to make links clickable, which I haven't seen before. Was the use of an integer ID and the auto-generated URL important rather than just having a text box which could contain multiple URLs? Did you try that and the URLs aren't clickable? -Greg
