Skip to content

Conversation

apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

The ShortcutCommand was born to handle one case (reviews) but I'd like to expand its scope to handle more convenience custom shortcuts for commands that will modify labels.

However just adding more code would make things a bit confusing, so I'd first start clarifying the scope of the existing code and in subsequent patches add more shortcut commands.

At a high level, I can imagine something like this:

  • shortcut::ReviewCommand to handle commands like author, review, ready, etc.
  • shortcut::RegressionCommand to handle future commands for quick switching label regressions (todo)
  • shortcut:NewCommand (and so on)

Functionally this patch changes nothing, it's just renaming things.

I wrote about this on Zulip.

Thanks for having a look here. I'd like to get some opinons if this makes sense before moving forward with further work.

r?

@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

@apiraino apiraino marked this pull request as draft August 21, 2025 16:57
The ShortcutCommand was born to handle one case (reviews) but I'd like
to expand its scope to handle more convenience custom shortcuts for
commands that will modify labels.

However just adding more code would make things a bit confusing, so
I'd first start clarifying the scope of the existing code and in
subsequent patches add more shortcut commands.

At a high level, I can imagine something like this:
- shortcut::ReviewCommand to handle commands like `author`, `review`,
`ready`, etc.
- shortcut::RegressionCommand to handle future commands for quick
switching label regressions (todo)
- shortcut:NewCommand (and so on)

Functionally this patch changes nothing, it's just renaming things.
@apiraino apiraino force-pushed the rename-shortcut-command branch from 768b4a8 to e304185 Compare August 21, 2025 17:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants