CI: Remind people of adding an entry to `CHANGELOG` about runtimes

[bkchr]

Overhead was the wrong word here. What I meant is relying on too much logic outside of the repo that is complicated to adapt to our needs here.

[Bullrich]

What about a modifying the pull_request_template to inform the users of the requirement?

Could be something like:

<!-- Remember that you can run `/merge` to enable auto-merge in the PR -->

## Checklist
Did you remember to modify the `CHANGELOG.md` file?
- [ ] Yes

---

The other option is to generate a simple action that can see if the CHANGELOG file has not been modified and either, comment on the creation of a PR that the file has not been modified, or, fail until the CHANGELOG file has been modified.

[Bullrich]

The other option is to generate a simple action that can see if the CHANGELOG file has not been modified and either, comment on the creation of a PR that the file has not been modified, or, fail until the CHANGELOG file has been modified.

Example using: pr-includes-file-change:

name: Modify Changelog

on:
  pull_request_target:
    types:
      - opened

jobs:

  test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    env:
      GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ github.token }}
    steps:
      - name: Get Changed Files
        id: changed
        uses: foodee/pr-includes-file-change@master
        with:
          paths: ^CHANGELOG.md
      - name: Comment lack of CHANGELOG
        if: steps.changed.outputs.matched != 'true'
        run: gh pr comment $PR_NUMBER --body "Please modify the CHANGELOG.md file 🗂️"
        env:
          PR_NUMBER: context.issue.number
      - name: Fail
        if: steps.changed.outputs.matched != 'true'
        run: exit 1

Disclaimer, I haven't tested this action.

[ggwpez]

Something in the MR template to skip changelog modification would be good. Then the CI action can check whether the description contains a [x] Does not require a CHANGELOG entry or so (maybe the question should be more explicit with a Yes or No).

[bkchr]

Something in the MR template to skip changelog modification would be good. Then the CI action can check whether the description contains a [x] Does not require a CHANGELOG entry or so (maybe the question should be more explicit with a Yes or No).

Yes this could work.

[mutantcornholio]

This looks awfully like prdoc...
Changed/Added/Fixed sections kinda look like audiences (and that's configurable with custom schema).

[bkchr]

We may switch to prdoc at some point, but currently I don't want to pull the overhead it brings into this repo. When it is more major etc, we can check it.

[mutantcornholio]

If we don't want to bring overhead, maybe stick to a PR template without any CI for now?

[Bullrich]

PR #153 has been created to solve this requirement.

[Bullrich]

PR #153 has been merged (e115160). For some reason, this issue has not been closed automatically 🤔

[bkchr]

I assume just because github didn't found the keywords it was searching for.

[Bullrich]

It should as the PR does mention that, once it will be merged, it will close the issue:

Maybe they had some internal problem?

Thanks for closing it! ✅