quality/blockerbugs
7
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 32 Pull requests 2 Projects 1 Releases Activity Actions

Switch from Pagure to Forge for blocker review discussions #296

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-01-20 13:26:09 +00:00 by kparal · 21 comments
kparal commented 2026-01-20 13:26:09 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Currently we support only Pagure for doing async blocker review discussions. For production, we use the blocker-review repo.

Since we're migrating from Pagure to Forge, we would need a change in blockerbugs that would drop Pagure support and introduce Forge support for blocker discussions.

This means:
a) implementing reading, creating and editing a Forge ticket through its API
b) figuring out how to get notified when a Forge ticket is updated (in Pagure, we do this through a webhook)
c) figuring out authentication with Forge, and testing for privileged members
d) fixing ticket formatting if needed

Don't forget that most of the changes can be tested through staging instances - https://stg.pagure.io , https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com and https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org .

Implementation checklist:

  • Merge #299 and deploy to staging
  • Test it properly
  • Migrate https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review to https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/blocker-review . Update the README with latest version from BBA.
  • Merge to master, tag a new release, and deploy to production
  • Recreate discussions that currently point to Pagure. The currently open migrated tickets will likely need to be manually marked as duplicates and closed.
  • Update references to blocker-review (from wiki pages etc)
  • Announce the change publicly
  • Drop obsolete variables from Infra
Currently we support only Pagure for doing async blocker review discussions. For production, we use the [blocker-review](https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review) repo. Since we're migrating from Pagure to Forge, we would need a change in blockerbugs that would drop Pagure support and introduce Forge support for blocker discussions. This means: a) implementing reading, creating and editing a Forge ticket through its API b) figuring out how to get notified when a Forge ticket is updated (in Pagure, we do this through a webhook) c) figuring out authentication with Forge, and testing for privileged members d) fixing ticket formatting if needed Don't forget that most of the changes can be tested through staging instances - https://stg.pagure.io , https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com and https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org . **Implementation checklist:** - [x] Merge #299 and deploy to staging - [x] Test it properly - [x] Migrate https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review to https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/blocker-review . Update the README with latest version from BBA. - [x] Merge to master, tag a new release, and deploy to production - [x] Recreate discussions that currently point to Pagure. The currently open migrated tickets will likely need to be manually marked as duplicates and closed. - [x] Update references to blocker-review (from wiki pages etc) - [x] Announce the change publicly - [x] Drop obsolete variables from Infra
kparal added this to the Next BB tasks project 2026-01-20 13:26:10 +00:00
jgroman added reference fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge 2026-01-27 09:06:34 +00:00
kparal modified the project from Sprint 2 to Sprint 3 2026-02-10 15:00:56 +00:00
jgroman commented 2026-02-10 16:53:27 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
  • The code currently lives in branch fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge
  • Forge bot is configured using new constants with FORGEJO_ prefix in config.py, there is also new DISCUSSION_SYSTEM option, which needs to be changed from "pagure" to "forgejo"
  • Users currently get authorized to vote by being members of the team set in FORGEJO_ADMIN_TEAM (unfortunate name, needs refactoring :) )
- The code currently lives in branch `fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge` - Forge bot is configured using new constants with `FORGEJO_` prefix in `config.py`, there is also new `DISCUSSION_SYSTEM` option, which needs to be changed from "pagure" to "forgejo" - Users currently get authorized to vote by being members of the team set in `FORGEJO_ADMIN_TEAM` (unfortunate name, needs refactoring :) )
adamwill modified the project from Sprint 3 to Sprint 4 2026-02-24 16:31:55 +00:00
jgroman modified the project from Sprint 4 to Sprint 5 2026-03-10 12:27:26 +00:00
kparal commented 2026-03-10 14:10:57 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Some thoughts during my quick inspection today:

  • Pagure support is still kept in (and it involves some overhead code to differentiate between the two systems), do you have a preference? I'd either drop Pagure immediately, or (in case we want to play defensive), after a few weeks once Forgejo integration is verified to work in production. The latter is of course safer, but given that we'll likely push this to production after F44 cycle, we won't have many tickets to validate this with for the next 3-4 months, so I'm not sure if that helps us at all 🙂 I currently lean a bit towards just nuking Pagure immediately, which will make the new code simpler (including CLI commands). What about you?

Also, let's create a PR so that I can put some direct comments on particular lines?

Some thoughts during my quick inspection today: * Pagure support is still kept in (and it involves some overhead code to differentiate between the two systems), do you have a preference? I'd either drop Pagure immediately, or (in case we want to play defensive), after a few weeks once Forgejo integration is verified to work in production. The latter is of course safer, but given that we'll likely push this to production after F44 cycle, we won't have many tickets to validate this with for the next 3-4 months, so I'm not sure if that helps us at all 🙂 I currently lean a bit towards just nuking Pagure immediately, which will make the new code simpler (including CLI commands). What about you? Also, let's create a PR so that I can put some direct comments on particular lines?
jgroman commented 2026-03-10 14:36:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I was just playing it safe and keeping backwards compatibility with Pagure just in case. If that is not really required we can remove Pagure specific code for sure.
Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably.

I was just playing it safe and keeping backwards compatibility with Pagure just in case. If that is not really required we can remove Pagure specific code for sure. Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/quality/blockerbugs/issues/298) since that would change required code considerably.
kparal commented 2026-03-10 14:57:17 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably.

I wouldn't delay this with that ticket. It might take a long time to evaluate it and it might be a complete rewrite of the process. We can be much quicker if we finalize this and push to production, because you have it almost all written already, as it seems. We can consider #298 as a possible future improvement.

> Let's create PR after possible Actions upgrade is evaluated (#298) since that would change required code considerably. I wouldn't delay this with that ticket. It might take a long time to evaluate it and it might be a complete rewrite of the process. We can be much quicker if we finalize this and push to production, because you have it almost all written already, as it seems. We can consider #298 as a possible future improvement.
👍 1
kparal commented 2026-03-10 17:27:11 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

In our today's team call, we agreed that it makes no sense to carry forward Pagure integration as well. Jaroslav, could you please adjust the PR to drop Pagure support? It should make some code paths simpler. Thanks!

In our today's team call, we agreed that it makes no sense to carry forward Pagure integration as well. Jaroslav, could you please adjust the PR to drop Pagure support? It should make some code paths simpler. Thanks!
👍 1
jgroman commented 2026-03-11 08:06:37 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Ack, will do.

Ack, will do.
kparal modified the project from Sprint 5 to Sprint 6 2026-03-24 15:13:54 +00:00
adamwill modified the project from Sprint 6 to Sprint 7 2026-04-07 15:10:53 +00:00
kparal commented 2026-04-20 13:32:40 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

TODO: In Forgejo 15.0 access tokens can now be limited to just specific repositories. It might be a good idea to limit the blockerbot access just to the blocker-review repo. (Once Forgejo 15.0 is deployed in Fedora).

TODO: In Forgejo 15.0 [access tokens can now be limited to just specific repositories](https://forgejo.org/2026-04-release-v15-0/#repository-specific-access-tokens). It might be a good idea to limit the blockerbot access just to the blocker-review repo. (Once Forgejo 15.0 is deployed in Fedora).
adamwill modified the project from Sprint 7 to Sprint 8 2026-04-21 15:13:18 +00:00
adamwill commented 2026-04-28 07:12:19 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

the staging deployment should be working and ready for testing now.

the staging deployment should be working and ready for testing now.
kparal commented 2026-04-28 12:21:59 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

We've hit a snag with checking admin vote commands privileges (AGREED, REVOTE). Previously, we checked membership in a particular Pagure group, and those members could issue admin vote commands. We tried to replicate the same approach in Forge, where we have two Quality teams - Owners (admin access to the organization and all our repos), and Members (admin access to all our repos). The idea is that Quality Members can issue admin vote commands (in the blocker-review repo).

At the same time, I'm trying to have the bot (blockerbot) just minimal access itself (both interactive and API), so that an attacker can't misuse it much if it gains access to it.

But it's not easy to have both at the same time. Current constraints:

  • Blockerbot can only verify org team membership (e.g. Quality Members), if it's a member of that org itself.
  • Blockerbot can verify general org membership (but not down to a particular team), even if it isn't a member of that org itself.
  • If we make blockerbot a member of Quality Members, it will have admin access to all our repos (interactively). For an API token, we can restrict it just to rw access to all repos. If the account or API token is hijacked, it can be used to do unpleasant stuff.
    • For API token approach, there's another option - have two different tokens. The first token would grant read access to Quality org (we need that to check team membership), the second token would grant rw access to the blocker-review repo selectively (not all our repos). The downside is that BBA would need to handle two tokens instead of one, and that this only restricts API token misuse - a full account hijacking still allows everything interactively (including creating new token with full privileges, of course).

Our current options (that we're aware of):

A) Give blockerbot Quality Members membership, use one token with rw:issues and read:org. This is the easiest, but least safe. No more code changes needed, but both the account and the API token can be misused widely.

B) Give blockerbot Quality Members membership, use two tokens, one with read:org, and the second with rw:issues just for the blocker-review repo. This is a bit safer, the API tokens can't be misused (outside of the blocker-review repo). The full account hijack still allows everything.

C) Create a specific new Quality team just for blockerbot, with very restricted access. We just need blockerbot to be a part of Quality, it doesn't need to have write permissions anywhere (just blocker-review repo is enough). We can have a special-tailored team just for it. This would be ideal, but it's not self-service. We would need to ask Fedora Infra to set up two new FAS groups (one is the primary source of truth, the second just clones the members and is used for Forge - I have no idea why they do it this way, but they do), create the Forge group, and set up the connections. Because we might have some needs for future adjustments, I feel a bit bad for bothering the Infra team every time.

D) Don't give blockerbot Quality membership, check global Quality membership for admin vote command privileges. If we don't require to check a particular Quality team, but we rely just on arbitrary Quality membership (i.e. any team, as long as it's inside Quality), we don't need blockerbot to be a part of Quality, all the troubles from above are gone. The downside is, obviously, that anyone inside Quality can issue admin vote commands. Currently that's not a problem at all, because Members is used exactly for that, and there's no other team (except Owners). But if we wanted, in the future, create some other team, with limited access, for some specific group of people, all of those would be able to issue admin vote commands as well. Please note that I'm currently not aware of any specific use case we might want to achieve by having another team (if we want to give elevated access to a specific repo to a specific person, that can be done inside that very repo through Collaborators feature, it doesn't need handling through org teams). So perhaps this is just a theoretical concern. But if we decide to go this way, it will require code changes if we ever encounter this situation and want to create another team.

E) Check FAS directly. Instead of fighting Forge and its tokens and memberships, we can query a FAS group directly to see its members. The Forge teams are directly mapped from FAS anyway. But this would require a new code (with some form of authentication, because FAS account/group info can't be accessed publicly), and we don't know how difficult this can be.

F) Keep the admin list defined in Blockerbugs directly. Similarly to Testdays, in the admin interface we could define a list of FAS users eligible for admin vote commands. It's quite a bit of work, and increases maintenance, though.

There might be more approaches that didn't occur to us. Do you see any other?

@adamwill @jgroman Do you have any preference for these options?

For me, the technically best is C), but it complicates the setup and creates more work for Infra. I'd love if this (and any future changes) were in our hands instead. So I might suggest D), because it feels good enough for now, and should be a very easy change. E) might be also easy, we just don't know.

We've hit a snag with checking admin vote commands privileges (AGREED, REVOTE). Previously, we checked membership in a particular Pagure group, and those members could issue admin vote commands. We tried to replicate the same approach in Forge, where we have two Quality teams - Owners (admin access to the organization and all our repos), and Members (admin access to all our repos). The idea is that Quality Members can issue admin vote commands (in the blocker-review repo). At the same time, I'm trying to have the bot (blockerbot) just minimal access itself (both interactive and API), so that an attacker can't misuse it much if it gains access to it. But it's not easy to have both at the same time. Current constraints: * Blockerbot can only verify **org team membership** (e.g. Quality Members), if it's a member of that org itself. * Blockerbot can verify **general org membership** (but not down to a particular team), even if it isn't a member of that org itself. * If we make blockerbot a member of Quality Members, it will have **admin access to all our repos** (interactively). For an API token, we can restrict it just to rw access to all repos. If the account or API token is hijacked, it can be used to do unpleasant stuff. * For API token approach, there's another option - have two different tokens. The first token would grant read access to Quality org (we need that to check team membership), the second token would grant rw access to the blocker-review repo selectively (not all our repos). The downside is that BBA would need to handle two tokens instead of one, and that this only restricts API token misuse - a full account hijacking still allows everything interactively (including creating new token with full privileges, of course). Our current options (that we're aware of): **A) Give blockerbot Quality Members membership, use one token with rw:issues and read:org.** This is the easiest, but least safe. No more code changes needed, but both the account and the API token can be misused widely. **B) Give blockerbot Quality Members membership, use two tokens, one with read:org, and the second with rw:issues just for the blocker-review repo.** This is a bit safer, the API tokens can't be misused (outside of the blocker-review repo). The full account hijack still allows everything. **C) Create a specific new Quality team just for blockerbot, with very restricted access.** We just need blockerbot to be a part of Quality, it doesn't need to have write permissions anywhere (just blocker-review repo is enough). We can have a special-tailored team just for it. This would be ideal, but it's not self-service. We would need to ask Fedora Infra to set up two new FAS groups (one is the primary source of truth, the second just clones the members and is used for Forge - I have no idea why they do it this way, but they do), create the Forge group, and set up the connections. Because we might have some needs for future adjustments, I feel a bit bad for bothering the Infra team every time. **D) Don't give blockerbot Quality membership, check global Quality membership for admin vote command privileges.** If we don't require to check a particular Quality _team_, but we rely just on arbitrary Quality membership (i.e. any team, as long as it's inside Quality), we don't need blockerbot to be a part of Quality, all the troubles from above are gone. The downside is, obviously, that anyone inside Quality can issue admin vote commands. Currently that's not a problem at all, because Members is used exactly for that, and there's no other team (except Owners). But if we wanted, in the future, create some other team, with limited access, for some specific group of people, all of those would be able to issue admin vote commands as well. Please note that I'm currently not aware of any specific use case we might want to achieve by having another team (if we want to give elevated access to a specific repo to a specific person, that can be done inside that very repo through Collaborators feature, it doesn't need handling through org teams). So perhaps this is just a theoretical concern. But if we decide to go this way, it will require code changes if we ever encounter this situation and want to create another team. **E) Check FAS directly.** Instead of fighting Forge and its tokens and memberships, we can query a FAS group directly to see its members. The Forge teams are directly mapped from FAS anyway. But this would require a new code (with some form of authentication, because FAS account/group info can't be accessed publicly), and we don't know how difficult this can be. **F) Keep the admin list defined in Blockerbugs directly.** Similarly to Testdays, in the admin interface we could define a list of FAS users eligible for admin vote commands. It's quite a bit of work, and increases maintenance, though. There might be more approaches that didn't occur to us. Do you see any other? @adamwill @jgroman Do you have any preference for these options? For me, the technically best is C), but it complicates the setup and creates more work for Infra. I'd love if this (and any future changes) were in our hands instead. So I might suggest D), because it feels good enough for now, and should be a very easy change. E) might be also easy, we just don't know.
jgroman commented 2026-04-28 13:17:47 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

In ideal conditions I would also prefer C (dedicated team) but as not to burden infra team with extra work I'd say let's do D (just query Quality org public members).
BTW: I suspect E (querying FAS) would require Kerberos auth.

In ideal conditions I would also prefer C (dedicated team) but as not to burden infra team with extra work I'd say let's do D (just query Quality org public members). BTW: I suspect E (querying FAS) would require Kerberos auth.
adamwill commented 2026-04-28 15:03:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I'd also prefer D or E. We've had extremely loose permissions for relatively unimportant things before - like the blockerbugs admin interface having no auth on it at all, and anonymous editing in the wiki "Test Results" space - and it has not been a problem. Any abuse of membership would be pretty visible, too (anyone subscribed to the ticket would see the inappropriate action).

I'd also prefer D or E. We've had extremely loose permissions for relatively unimportant things before - like the blockerbugs admin interface having no auth on it at all, and anonymous editing in the wiki "Test Results" space - and it has not been a problem. Any abuse of membership would be pretty visible, too (anyone subscribed to the ticket would see the inappropriate action).
adamwill commented 2026-04-29 06:36:56 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I guess we could also note that the admin commands in blockerbugs don't currently really mean much...and the 'real' status change action - which is to put a string in the Whiteboard field in Bugzilla - is also loosely-constrained. There are lots and lots of people who can set the Whiteboard field on any bug in BZ, and of course the user who reported any blocker can also set it. So far I can't think of a single case of it being done maliciously.

I guess we could also note that the admin commands in blockerbugs don't currently really *mean* much...and the 'real' status change action - which is to put a string in the Whiteboard field in Bugzilla - is also loosely-constrained. There are lots and lots of people who can set the Whiteboard field on any bug in BZ, and of course the user who reported any blocker can also set it. So far I can't think of a single case of it being done maliciously.
kparal commented 2026-04-29 12:54:36 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

We went with D) and it seems to be working.

We went with **D)** and it seems to be working.
kparal commented 2026-04-29 14:59:43 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@adamwill @psklenar @lruzicka
Folks, the (hopefully) final version is now deployed in staging. Can you please test it a bit before we move it to production?

Blockerbugs: https://qa.stg.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/
Bugs are retrieved from: https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com/
Review tickets: https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org/quality/blocker-review/issues

The latest version in stg bugzilla is 40, so use F40BetaBlocker and similar keywords when proposing any bugs. Don't worry, all emails are disabled in staging, you can do completely what you want there. If you use the Propose button in BBA, it gets added to the UI immediately, you don't need to wait for the 30 minute refresh.

Please try to propose some bugs and vote on them in the tickets, use AGREED and REVOTE etc.

If no one can see any issue, we can promote this to production. Thanks!

@adamwill Any opinion whether we should migrate all the old 2000 voting tickets from https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review , when setting up our production Forge blocker-review repo?

@adamwill @psklenar @lruzicka Folks, the (hopefully) final version is now deployed in staging. Can you please test it a bit before we move it to production? Blockerbugs: https://qa.stg.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Bugs are retrieved from: https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com/ Review tickets: https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org/quality/blocker-review/issues The latest version in stg bugzilla is 40, so use **F40**BetaBlocker and similar keywords when proposing any bugs. Don't worry, all emails are disabled in staging, you can do completely what you want there. If you use the Propose button in BBA, it gets added to the UI immediately, you don't need to wait for the 30 minute refresh. Please try to propose some bugs and vote on them in the tickets, use AGREED and REVOTE etc. If no one can see any issue, we can promote this to production. Thanks! @adamwill Any opinion whether we should migrate all the old 2000 voting tickets from https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review , when setting up our production Forge blocker-review repo?
adamwill commented 2026-04-29 16:34:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Thanks!

@adamwill Any opinion whether we should migrate all the old 2000 voting tickets from https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review , when setting up our production Forge blocker-review repo?

mmm...I think we probably should give it a shot. There's valuable historic info in there. It's good to have a record of why decisions were made. If it turns out to be a real pain we could maybe live without it, though.

Thanks! > @adamwill Any opinion whether we should migrate all the old 2000 voting tickets from https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review , when setting up our production Forge blocker-review repo? mmm...I think we probably should give it a shot. There's valuable historic info in there. It's good to have a record of why decisions were made. If it turns out to be a real pain we could maybe live without it, though.
kparal commented 2026-04-30 09:04:59 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Alright, I'll try. (I added an implementation checklist to the first post, so that everyone can keep track of the progress).

Alright, I'll try. (I added an implementation checklist to the first post, so that everyone can keep track of the progress).
kparal commented 2026-05-04 12:34:07 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

BBA version 1.15 tagged and deployed to production.

Publicly announced here:

**BBA version 1.15 tagged and deployed to production.** Publicly announced here: * https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/I6EY57ECOCT5SQ2S2MYFCVU4MC3ZW4N7/ * https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/blocker-review-tickets-migrated-to-forge/190381
kparal commented 2026-05-04 13:03:13 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Infra ansible cleanup ticket:
infra/ansible#3324

Infra ansible cleanup ticket: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/pulls/3324
kparal commented 2026-05-04 13:06:46 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

I believe we can finally consider this done, yay 🎉️

This has been through many many milestone, might deserve even more story points. Changing and closing.

I believe we can finally consider this done, yay 🎉️ This has been through many many milestone, might deserve even more story points. Changing and closing.
🎉 1
adamwill commented 2026-05-04 18:31:13 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I guess we can open a new ticket for testing in staging and then deploying to prod?

I guess we can open a new ticket for testing in staging and then deploying to prod?
kparal commented 2026-05-05 12:13:06 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

It's already deployed to production 😆️ See the checklist in the first comment.

It's already deployed to production 😆️ See the checklist in the first comment.
🎉 1 🚀 1
Sign in to join this conversation.
fix/296-blocker-review-voting-on-forge
Branches Tags
Clear current reference
develop
master
staging
discussion_link_bz
feature/sync_in_admin_ui
flask_middleware_oc
feature/bugdeps2
kparal/selfref
Clear current reference
1.16
1.15
1.14
1.13
1.12
1.11
1.10
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6.1
1.6
1.5
1.4.1
1.4.0
1.3.1
1.3.0
1.2.1
1.2.0
1.1.0
1.0.0
0.7.4
0.7.3
0.7.2
0.7.1
0.7.0
0.6.1
0.6.0
0.5.0
0.4.15
0.4.14
0.4.13
0.4.12
0.4.4.11-1
0.4.4.11
0.4.4.10
0.4.4.7
0.4.4.6
0.4.4.5
0.4.4.3
0.4.4.2
0.4.4.1
0.4.4
0.4.3.6
0.4.3.5
0.4.3.4
0.4.3.3
0.4.3.1
0.4.3
0.4.2
0.4.1
0.4.0
0.3.0.3.4
t414-infrareviewfix
t414-proposalfix
0.3.0.3
0.3.0.2
0.3.0.1
0.3.0
0.2.5
Labels
Clear labels   
Closed As
Duplicate
 Closed with the reason of Duplicate

  
Closed As
Fixed
 Closed with the reason of Fixed

  
Closed As
Invalid
 Closed with the reason of Invalid

  
discussions
issues related to the blocker discussion system in pagure

  
easyfix

   
enhancement
a request for or implementation of an enhancement (not a bug fix)

  
task
issue that isn't a bug fix or enhancement but some kind of admin task

  
ai-review-please
Request AI review for a pull request

  
Backlog Status
Needs Review
 Work items that have been created or updated but need review, refinement, or approval before they can be considered ready for sprint planning.

  
Backlog Status
Ready
 Work items that have been reviewed, refined, and are ready to be committed to a sprint. These items have clear requirements and can be worked on immediately when capacity is available.

  
chore
Work that needs to be done but doesn't add new functionality or fix bugs. Maintenance tasks that keep the system running smoothly and the codebase clean.

  
documentation
Work focused on creating, updating, or improving documentation for users, developers, or system administrators.

  
points
01
 A task that is simple, small, and has very little uncertainty. It should be easy enough for any team member to pick up and complete quickly, without a lot of discussion or research.

  
points
02
 This is a task that is slightly more complex or larger than a "1." It might involve two or three simple steps, but the outcome is still very clear and there's little uncertainty.

  
points
03
 Medium-sized task with some noticeable complexity. It might require a bit more thought or collaboration. The steps are well-defined, but it's not a trivial change.

  
points
05
 A significant piece of work. It has more complexity and a higher degree of uncertainty than smaller tasks. It might require some research, a design discussion, or collaboration across multiple teams.

  
points
08
 Complex task with a lot of uncertainty. It's often the largest size that a team will consider for a single sprint. It likely requires a detailed breakdown and multiple team members to complete.

  
points
13
 Any task that feels like it's a "13" or more is considered an Epic. These are too large and uncertain to be worked on in a single sprint and should be broken down.

  
pr2jira
Sync this pull request to Jira for Agility tracking. Only use for PRs without a corresponding ticket.

  
Priority
Critical
 This is for work that is urgent and of critical importance and so and must be addressed immediately with a higher priority than all other work, even if not originally planned for the current sprint.

  
Priority
High
 This is for work that is critical and needs to be addressed in the next sprint. It's often for urgent bugs, important features, or a major piece of technical debt that is blocking other work.

  
Priority
Low
 This is for work that is good to do but not urgent. It's a candidate for being worked on when there's extra time or when it rises in importance. It can stay in the backlog for a longer period.

  
Priority
Medium
 This is for important work that should be done soon, but isn't as urgent as a high-priority item. It will likely be considered for the next 1-2 sprints.

  
Sprint Status
Blocked
 Work items that cannot progress due to external dependencies, blockers, or issues that need resolution.

  
Sprint Status
Done
 Work items that have been completed, reviewed, and integrated. No further work is needed within the current sprint.

  
Sprint Status
In Progress
 Work items currently being worked on by a team member. Active development, research, or implementation is happening.

  
Sprint Status
Review
 Work items that are complete but need review, testing, or approval before being marked as done.

  
Sprint Status
To Do
 Work items that are committed to the sprint but haven't been started yet. These items are ready to be picked up by team members.

  
Technical Debt
Work that addresses shortcuts, workarounds, or suboptimal implementations that were done previously to meet deadlines. These items improve code quality, maintainability, or performance without adding new features.

  
Work Item
Bug
 Issues where the system is not working as intended or designed. Bugs represent deviations from expected behavior.

  
Work Item
Epic
 Large initiatives that are broken down into multiple smaller work items (user stories, tasks, bugs). Epics represent significant features or projects that span multiple sprints.

  
Work Item
Spike
 Time-boxed research, investigation, or proof-of-concept work to reduce uncertainty or explore solutions. Spikes help inform future development decisions.

  
Work Item
Task
 Used to break down larger user stories into smaller, manageable implementation pieces. They focus on the specific technical steps needed to deliver the user story's value.

  
Work Item
User Story
 User-facing features or functionality that can be framed from a user perspective, describing what someone wants to accomplish and why.

No labels
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed As
Fixed
Closed As
Invalid
discussions
easyfix
enhancement
task
ai-review-please
Backlog Status
Needs Review
Backlog Status
Ready
chore
documentation
points
01
points
02
points
03
points
05
points
08
points
13
pr2jira
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Sprint Status
Blocked
Sprint Status
Done
Sprint Status
In Progress
Sprint Status
Review
Sprint Status
To Do
Technical Debt
Work Item
Bug
Work Item
Epic
Work Item
Spike
Work Item
Task
Work Item
User Story
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Sprint 8
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
kparal
jgroman
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Depends on
#477 Mirror Forge QA org teams setup into staging
forge/forge
#299 Blockerbot for Forge
quality/blockerbugs
#13250 Quality Blockerbugs app secret storage update
infra/tickets
#3195 quality: Update blockerbugs app env variables
infra/ansible
#3324 blockerbugs: drop unneeded variables after Pagure->Forge migration
infra/ansible
Reference
quality/blockerbugs#296
No description provided.