Skip to content

fix: improve error logging and changelog validation#59

Merged
cryptodev-2s merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
cryptodev2s/improve-error-logging-changelog-validation
Apr 11, 2025
Merged

fix: improve error logging and changelog validation#59
cryptodev-2s merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
cryptodev2s/improve-error-logging-changelog-validation

Conversation

@cryptodev-2s
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cryptodev-2s cryptodev-2s commented Apr 10, 2025

Improve Error Logging and Changelog Validation

Overview

This pull request enhances the changelog check script with the following improvements:

  1. Enhanced Error Logging:

    • Introduced a logError function to print error messages in red, improving visibility.
    • Removed unnecessary stack traces from error outputs to make logs cleaner and more focused.
  2. Changelog Validation Enhancement:

    • Added a requirement for the pr-number argument to ensure that each pull request has a corresponding entry in the changelog.
    • This change addresses an issue where the script previously only checked for any unreleased changes, which could lead to inaccuracies if there were existing unreleased changes and new changes were made.

- Added a `logError` function to print error messages in red, removing unnecessary stack traces.
- Required `pr-number` to ensure each PR has a corresponding changelog entry.
- Fixed an issue where the script only checked for any unreleased changes, which could be inaccurate if there were existing unreleased changes and new changes were made.
@cryptodev-2s cryptodev-2s merged commit 91e349d into main Apr 11, 2025
17 checks passed
@cryptodev-2s cryptodev-2s deleted the cryptodev2s/improve-error-logging-changelog-validation branch April 11, 2025 13:16
github-merge-queue Bot pushed a commit to MetaMask/metamask-mobile that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2025
<!--
Please submit this PR as a draft initially.
Do not mark it as "Ready for review" until the template has been
completely filled out, and PR status checks have passed at least once.
-->

## **Description**

This PR introduces enhanced changelog validation
   - Updates to the latest version of the changelog check workflow
- Adds PR-specific validation that ensures each PR has its own entry in
the changelog
-> [PR introducing the
changes](MetaMask/github-tools#59)

<!--
Write a short description of the changes included in this pull request,
also include relevant motivation and context. Have in mind the following
questions:
1. What is the reason for the change?
2. What is the improvement/solution?
-->

## **Related issues**

Fixes:

## **Manual testing steps**

1. Go to this page...
2.
3.

## **Screenshots/Recordings**

<!-- If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the
before and after of your change. -->

### **Before**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

### **After**

<!-- [screenshots/recordings] -->

## **Pre-merge author checklist**

- [ ] I’ve followed [MetaMask Contributor
Docs](https://github.com/MetaMask/contributor-docs) and [MetaMask Mobile
Coding
Standards](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/CODING_GUIDELINES.md).
- [ ] I've completed the PR template to the best of my ability
- [ ] I’ve included tests if applicable
- [ ] I’ve documented my code using [JSDoc](https://jsdoc.app/) format
if applicable
- [ ] I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see [labeling
guidelines](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/.github/guidelines/LABELING_GUIDELINES.md)).
Not required for external contributors.

## **Pre-merge reviewer checklist**

- [ ] I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the
app, test code being changed).
- [ ] I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described
in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such
as recordings and or screenshots.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants