@mislav | @vilmibm As a response to this comment #995 (comment), I've made a design document(link in the header description), a reference to the APIs supported by Github and a mock up dummy flow in the head branch itself.

Would love some feedback on this :)

@vilmibm thanks for the feedback :) I think this would be a mixture of multi select and a boolean survey.

For eg: There are boolean settings like Enable Wiki ? or Convert to a template repository ?. In this case it is redundant to ask the user to first select if he wants to edit these changes and again ask him if his answer is a yes or a no. We can directly ask him in a confirm prompt whether or not he's going to go for it.

I propose we keep the text fields and options which can have multiple choices like repo visibility as multi select i.e

• Name
• Description
• Homepage URL
• Visibility
• Merge Options

and boolean settings as a confirm prompt i.e

• Enable Issues
• Enable Wiki
• Converting to a template repo
• Archive Repo
• Delete head branches after merging PR

Would like to hear out your thoughts as well on this.

any thoughts @vilmibm ?

Hey @vilmibm just wanted to do a follow up about your thoughts on this :)

Hey @g14a ,

Thanks for your patience, sorry for the long delay.

Good point about the bool prompts. I like the compromise you suggested--feel free to go for it!

Thanks for the reply @vilmibm I updated the google doc with the heading 2nd iteration of Design Draft. I figured out there would be a scenario where the user would want to directly update only the boolean fields so I added another category called Other Options under which there are boolean prompts. In this way he doesn't need to go through the other prompts in order to reach the boolean prompts.

Google doc - doc

Attaching screenshot for reference:

Let me know if any changes are need to be made. If the design is convincing, I can start working on the implementation :)

Hey @vilmibm just wanted to get a follow up on the final design iteration :)

Hey @vilmibm I don't mean to hurry but did you find a moment to go through the latest draft attached above? Thank you :)

Hi @g14a, sorry for no communication! We were busy with making other features for gh and we didn't prioritize the edit command yet.

The prompt-based repo edit that you've sketched out looks good; it seems that it follows the existing design of gh issue edit.

I would suggest, though, to start with a non-interactive repo edit implementation that just takes flags for each field to edit. Once the non-interactive edit is done, you could make an interactive one in a subsequent PR. I think this would simplify the implementation & review process by splitting out a potentially large undertaking into two discrete bodies of work. Thank you!

@mislav thank you! That's all I needed. On it.

The actual PR can be found at #4318 as this is a design draft.

@g14a Now that the non-interactive portion has been merged #4318, you're welcome to explore the interactive parts again if you find time. However, if you will create a new PR for that, then this one can be closed. Thank you! 🙇