Skip to content

ci: Request TW review from the PR's team label - #3138

Open
TC-MO wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
ci/request-tw-review-by-label
Open

TC-MO wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
ci/request-tw-review-by-label

Conversation

@TC-MO

@TC-MO TC-MO commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds a workflow that requests a technical writer's review when a PR gets a team label (t-*), so the writer for that team's R&D group is pulled in automatically, including on fork PRs, instead of depending on CODEOWNERS paths.

It runs on pull_request_target (labeled, ready_for_review), maps each label to Foundation, Creators or Integrators and requests that group's writer, ignores unmapped labels, and skips the request when the writer is the PR author. Like CODEOWNERS, it waits until a draft is ready for review and leaves closed PRs alone.

The PR toolkit only labels PRs from Product Engineering members, so a fallback job requests @TC-MO for triage when no writer has been requested 90 seconds after a PR opens or becomes ready. It skips bots and PRs from writers.

Team labels map to R&D groups, so the right writer gets pulled in
even on fork PRs, without relying on CODEOWNERS paths.
@apify-service-account

apify-service-account commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Preview for this PR (commit cae3cb1) is ready at https://pr-3138.preview.docs.apify.com (see action run).

Matches CODEOWNERS, so writers aren't pinged on drafts or closed PRs.
@TC-MO TC-MO self-assigned this Oct 29, 2026
@TC-MO TC-MO added the t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team. label Oct 29, 2026
@TC-MO
TC-MO requested review from barjin and szaganek October 30, 2026 07:35
@TC-MO
TC-MO marked this pull request as ready for review October 30, 2026 07:36
The PR toolkit skips authors outside Product Engineering, so about half
of outside docs PRs get no team label and no writer.
@szaganek

szaganek commented Oct 30, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

My teams look okay (even though this is the first time I hear of c&c 🤨). One question, wouldn't it make sense to limit the check to files that live in sources? You'll get pinged about absolutely everything.

@TC-MO

TC-MO commented Oct 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I think c&c is a legacy label and could be removed tbh... 🤔 Oh yeah that is a good point as well I think I was erring on the side of being cautious to catch also changes to skills, agent files, standards but those are rarely if ever changed by someone else than us so I guess limiting it to /sources makes sense. Will do 🫡

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

t-docs Issues owned by technical writing team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants