Initial draft for triaging

[Sherwin-14]

This is the initial draft for the triaging document(#754). The pre-commit check is failing because of the use of format argument which seems like a necessity for rendering the doc, more on this here.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://earthaccess--901.org.readthedocs.build/en/901/

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 7b7f1aa

I will automatically update this comment whenever this PR is modified

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 4145cfe

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit a7a182c

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 9e876f3

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit aa815ff

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit b04d16f

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 827d79c

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit a9c8ea8

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 70f2f42

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 70edb3d

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 0b939b6

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit e53370f

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit ed81270

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 5ce45af

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit f41f79c

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 6c4df6b

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit a2029a5

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit a953c0e

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit c89cb13

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit cabf675

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 393df4a

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit cf51bad

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 48c9f05

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 172e224

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit b4104c2

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 500361c

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 1d94645

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 83514fc

[mfisher87]

Nice work! Will look more closely this week.

Looks like there's a tradeoff to be considered here to fix linting with --unsafe: https://github.com/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks#check-yaml

[asteiker]

I'm wondering if some updates may be needed based on the recently closed #760 ? If it would be helpful for me to review and update accordingly, I'd be happy to help.

[mfisher87]

@asteiker that would be super helpful!!

[mfisher87]

@asteiker OK to assign this PR to you?

[mfisher87]

🙌 Amazing work! Sorry about the number of suggestions here -- we re-organized labels in #760 to be more self-describing, and I think that helps make this document more clear!

[mfisher87]

@asteiker can you also take a look?

[mfisher87]

@Sherwin-14 how are you feeling about the next steps for this PR?

[Sherwin-14]

@Sherwin-14 how are you feeling about the next steps for this PR?

I was waiting for the next hackday to start working on this again. I believe collaborating on this alongside @asteiker would be the ideal path forward. We can list all the areas where improvements are needed, in that way I would also get an idea about what steps I need to take moving forward. I had individual reviews from you and Amy, but I feel collaborating together on this coming hackday would make it easier to keep a track of suggestions and improvements.

[asteiker]

@Sherwin-14 Yes, let's finalize these open items together at the hackday. I would also like to start implementing the priority designation in the bug priority project view: earthaccess project

[Sherwin-14]

@Sherwin-14 Yes, let's finalize these open items together at the hackday. I would also like to start implementing the priority designation in the bug priority project view: earthaccess project

Hey Amy! Could you summarize the improvements that we agreed upon on the last hackday? I do remember some of those but I guess you have a better idea about this.

[asteiker]

@Sherwin-14 Here is a summary of the changes remaining:

1. Update the erroneous "Unsupported markdown: list" box. This needs to be updated to be not numbered. There may be un-pushed work on this already from a previous hackday.

2. Update language on issues that do not follow a template (the first "no" fork). Update to: "request needed information from reporter and update issue on behalf of reporter"

Note that I also just entered #984 and can work this asap so that the pending triage label removal step is applicable.

[Sherwin-14]

@Sherwin-14 Here is a summary of the changes remaining:

1. Update the erroneous "Unsupported markdown: list" box. This needs to be updated to be not numbered. There may be un-pushed work on this already from a previous hackday.

2. Update language on issues that do not follow a template (the first "no" fork). Update to: "request needed information from reporter and update issue on behalf of reporter"

Note that I also just entered #984 and can work this asap so that the pending triage label removal step is applicable.

Thanks @asteiker! I have a question regarding the first point. Do you want me to remove the priority labels and just preserve the tags or do you want me to remove the tags alongside priority labels.

On removing priority labels and preserving the respective tags, the workflow diagram would look something like this.

[mfisher87]

Thanks @asteiker! I have a question regarding the first point. Do you want me to remove the priority labels and just preserve the tags or do you want me to remove the tags alongside priority labels.

On removing priority labels and preserving the respective tags, the workflow diagram would look something like this.

Can you clarify what you mean by "tags" here? If you mean the workflow steps (rectangles) I'm all for removing them :)

[Sherwin-14]

Can you clarify what you mean by "tags" here? If you mean the workflow steps (rectangles) I'm all for removing them :)

Yeah, workflow steps are what I meant by tags. But, the workflow diagram would be incomplete without them so we might have to replace these workflow steps with something else or get rid of those Diamond Shape boxes alongside workflow steps (maybe even removing the "Unsupported markdown: list" section entirely) going forward. What do you think about this?

[asteiker]

@Sherwin-14 and I discussed the behavior and agree that the "Unsupported markdown: list" box should be replaced with "Confirm that "Bug" label was automatically added as part of the Bug Issue template, otherwise add "Bug" label."

[mfisher87]

💯

I think we can remove "Does it make earthaccess unusable" and everything underneath. Let's worry about prioritization of issues when we're ready :)

[Sherwin-14]

💯

I think we can remove "Does it make earthaccess unusable" and everything underneath. Let's worry about prioritization of issues when we're ready :)

@mfisher87 I have made the changes, I think before merging we might need to fix the pre-commit issue.

[mfisher87]

Let's merge this once the pre-commit error is resolved. Thank you for your patience with this incredibly persistent task 😅

[Sherwin-14]

pre-commit now fails because of a uv related error.

[mfisher87]

Nice, thanks for the fix! The uv failure has been happening for a long while, no worries! It needs a separate fix.

[mfisher87]

This PR is docs-only so ignoring the integration test failures

[mfisher87]

Thanks, @Sherwin-14 🎉