[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs #6037

jameslamb · 2023-08-13T18:24:30Z

Proposes adding a bot that runs once a week and does the following for any closed issues and PRs that have not had any new activity in the previous 90 days, and which don't have the feature request label...

removes any of the following labels:
- awaiting response
- awaiting review
- blocking
- in progress
posts a comment encouraging anyone looking at it to open a new issue
locks conversation on the issue/PR (so only maintainers can post further comments)

Benefit of this change

Keeps focus on active conversations and PRs, that everyone looking at the repo can see.

Prevents the situation where people ask questions by commenting on old, closed discussions like this: #4803 (comment). In those situations, only people who were already subscribed to that particular conversation are notified.

Notes for Reviewers

We used to run a bot for this purpose in LightGBM, but it was turned off over 2 years ago, in #4251.

At the time, I recommended that we might switch from https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads-app (archived in 2021) to https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads (active): #4251 (comment)

But then we just never did that... I got busy with other things and forgot 😅

This PR proposes finally doing that. https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads is actively maintained (most recent rerlease in June 2023), and importantly doesn't require any new permissions changes in the repo, since it is able to run as a GitHub Actions workflow.

See https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads/blob/main/README.md#available-input-parameters for documentation on this configuration.

jameslamb · 2023-08-13T18:25:19Z

.github/workflows/lock.yml

+on:
+  schedule:
+    # midnight UTC, every Wednesday
+    - cron: '0 0 * * 3'


Running once a week should be plenty. I want to be respectful of GitHub's resources, and minimize the impact on our GitHub Actions quota for this specific repo.

jameslamb · 2023-08-13T18:28:02Z

.github/workflows/lock.yml

+          github-token: ${{ github.token }}
+          # after how many days of inactivity should a closed issue/PR be locked?
+          issue-inactive-days: '90'
+          pr-inactive-days: '90'


Note that we use to close issues after only 60 days of inactivity: #4251.

I think 90 is a good balance of allowing for recent discussions to be revived while also encouraging the creation of new discussions.

Please also note that this about locking 90 days AFTER an issue/PR is closed, and that we have a separate bot that automatically closes issues after 30 days waiting for a response:

LightGBM/.github/workflows/no-response.yml

Line 21 in 5c9e61d

daysUntilClose: 30

jameslamb · 2023-08-13T18:28:37Z

.github/workflows/lock.yml

+          remove-issue-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'
+          remove-pr-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'


Not sure if this will work with labels with spaces in the names... but I think the only way to test iis to merge to master.

I think it'll work. I just ran this (GH CLI):

gh api \ -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \ -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" \ /repos/microsoft/LightGBM/issues/6033

and this is the labels section

"labels": [ { "id": 466962712, "node_id": "MDU6TGFiZWw0NjY5NjI3MTI=", "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/microsoft/LightGBM/labels/feature%20request", "name": "feature request", "color": "1d76db", "default": false, "description": "" } ],

and it seems that this action takes the name of the label:
https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads/blob/be8aa5be94131386884a6da4189effda9b14aa21/src/index.js#L93
But yeah, we'll have to see it in action haha.

oh cool idea to use the GitHub CLI! I'd never used that before.

shiyu1994 · 2023-08-15T05:28:57Z

Surprisingly this should fail due to the bug of quantized training... It's my bad.

================================== FAILURES ===================================
___________________________ test_quantized_training ___________________________
    def test_quantized_training():
        X, y = make_synthetic_regression()
        ds = lgb.Dataset(X, label=y)
        bst_params = {'num_leaves': 15, 'verbose': -1, 'seed': 0}
        bst = lgb.train(bst_params, ds, num_boost_round=10)
        rmse = np.sqrt(np.mean((bst.predict(X) - y) ** 2))
        bst_params.update({
            'use_quantized_grad': True,
            'num_grad_quant_bins': 30,
            'quant_train_renew_leaf': True,
        })
>       quant_bst = lgb.train(bst_params, ds, num_boost_round=10)
tests\python_package_test\test_engine.py:4132: 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C:\Users\appveyor\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python38\site-packages\lightgbm\engine.py:276: in train
    booster.update(fobj=fobj)
C:\Users\appveyor\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python38\site-packages\lightgbm\basic.py:3602: in update
    _safe_call(_LIB.LGBM_BoosterUpdateOneIter(
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ret = -1
    def _safe_call(ret: int) -> None:
        """Check the return value from C API call.
    
        Parameters
        ----------
        ret : int
            The return value from C API calls.
        """
        if ret != 0:
>           raise LightGBMError(_LIB.LGBM_GetLastError().decode('utf-8'))
E           lightgbm.basic.LightGBMError: Check failed: (best_split_info.left_count) > (0) at C:\projects\lightgbm\lightgbm-python\src\treelearner\serial_tree_learner.cpp, line 845 .
C:\Users\appveyor\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python38\site-packages\lightgbm\basic.py:238: LightGBMError
---------------------------- Captured stderr call -----------------------------
[LightGBM] [Fatal] Check failed: (best_split_info.left_count) > (0) at C:\projects\lightgbm\lightgbm-python\src\treelearner\serial_tree_learner.cpp, line 845 .

Link #5982.

jameslamb · 2023-08-15T13:59:04Z

Thanks for linking that issue and pasting the logs here! I agree, it looks like that issue.

No problem, it doesn't need to block this PR... I just retriggered the job, hopefully it will pass on a second run. We should try to fix that, but as long as it usually succeeds and a retry gets past the occasional failure, it isn't high-urgency.

jmoralez · 2023-08-15T20:08:58Z

.github/workflows/lock.yml

+          remove-issue-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'
+          remove-pr-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'


I think it'll work. I just ran this (GH CLI):

gh api \ -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \ -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" \ /repos/microsoft/LightGBM/issues/6033

and this is the labels section

"labels": [ { "id": 466962712, "node_id": "MDU6TGFiZWw0NjY5NjI3MTI=", "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/microsoft/LightGBM/labels/feature%20request", "name": "feature request", "color": "1d76db", "default": false, "description": "" } ],

and it seems that this action takes the name of the label:
https://github.com/dessant/lock-threads/blob/be8aa5be94131386884a6da4189effda9b14aa21/src/index.js#L93
But yeah, we'll have to see it in action haha.

jameslamb · 2023-08-15T20:13:15Z

I just triggered a run right now with workflow_dispatch... let's see what happens.

https://github.com/microsoft/LightGBM/actions/runs/5871302631

jameslamb · 2023-08-15T20:38:28Z

It somewhat worked. I saw about 100 things get locked, and the comment posted looks correct.

#5665 (comment)

And the bot did remove labels correctly! For example, #5800 had awaiting review on it still even though it had been merged, and the bot removed it.

problem 1: it only locked some things

I'd expected it to be a lot more. There have been more than 100 issues closed + PRs merged in the last 2 years here!

I see a mix of PRs (e.g. #5665) and issues (e.g. #5574), so it's not like it's "just locked PRs" or "just locked issues".

I just triggered a new run, to see if maybe there's some limit in the number of issues/PRs it'll touch per run (to avoid hitting GitHub API limits, maybe?).

problem 2: it locked some issues with feature request in the labels

Like this one: #3200.

jameslamb · 2023-08-15T20:47:09Z

I just triggered a new run, to see if maybe there's some limit in the number of issues/PRs it'll touch per run (to avoid hitting GitHub API limits, maybe?).

Ok yes! Triggered https://github.com/microsoft/LightGBM/actions/runs/5871480057/job/15920921845

and it locked around another 100 issues.

So I guess there must be a per-run limit in that job. I'll stop manually triggering runs for now, so we can maybe use future runs to test fixes for the problems I stated above

github-actions · 2023-11-22T00:21:22Z

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity since it was closed. To start a new related discussion, open a new issue at https://github.com/microsoft/LightGBM/issues including a reference to this.

jameslamb added 2 commits August 13, 2023 13:13

[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs

275f84e

preserve feature requests, reduce to 90 days

426ad1f

jameslamb added the maintenance label Aug 13, 2023

jameslamb requested review from guolinke, shiyu1994 and jmoralez as code owners August 13, 2023 18:24

jameslamb commented Aug 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

jameslamb added the awaiting review label Aug 14, 2023

Merge branch 'master' into ci/add-lockbot

5914cf0

jmoralez approved these changes Aug 15, 2023

View reviewed changes

jameslamb removed the awaiting review label Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb merged commit 7a801f7 into master Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb deleted the ci/add-lockbot branch August 15, 2023 20:12

jameslamb mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2023

[ci] prevent lock-threads from locking issues with label 'feature request' #6047

Merged

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 22, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs #6037

[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs #6037

jameslamb commented Aug 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

jmoralez Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb Aug 15, 2023

shiyu1994 commented Aug 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

jmoralez Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

github-actions bot commented Nov 22, 2023

		remove-issue-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'
		remove-pr-labels: 'awaiting response,awaiting review,blocking,in progress'

[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs #6037

[ci] add bot to lock inactive issues and PRs #6037

Conversation

jameslamb commented Aug 13, 2023 • edited Loading

Benefit of this change

Notes for Reviewers

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jameslamb Aug 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmoralez Aug 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jameslamb Aug 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shiyu1994 commented Aug 15, 2023 • edited Loading

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

jmoralez Aug 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023 • edited Loading

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023

github-actions bot commented Nov 22, 2023

jameslamb commented Aug 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

shiyu1994 commented Aug 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jameslamb commented Aug 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading