Allow `gh pr view <closed_pr_branch_name>` to view closed PRs by bill3tt · Pull Request #2276 · cli/cli

bill3tt · 2020-10-23T18:20:14Z

Hello 👋 This is my first PR being raised here, so please let me know if I'm getting something wrong 😄

Currently, you can't view closed PRs by branch. This is due to a states: OPEN filter in the graphql query.

However, viewing the closed PR by number does work as the query does not have this condition here.

This PR removes this condition from the PullRequestForBranch function.

Before this change

➜  cli git:(c8b7dad) go run cmd/gh/main.go pr view quiye:issue-report -R cli/cli --web
no open pull requests found for branch "quiye:issue-report"

After this change

➜  cli git:(view-closed-prs) go run cmd/gh/main.go pr view quiye:issue-report -R cli/cli --web
Opening github.com/cli/cli/pull/2262 in your browser.

This closes #2270

samcoe · 2020-10-26T08:07:17Z

Thanks for contributing! I think this is a good start but the solution runs into some issues with other uses of PullRequestForBranch. For example, PullRequestForBranch, is used in pr/create command to determine if there is already an open PR for the current branch. This change would break that behavior and return the incorrect result if there was a closed PR for the current branch. What I think we need to do is add a state argument to PullRequestForBranch so that the callers can decide if they want to look for open or closed PRs.

mislav

Good find! Thanks for taking this on 🙇

mislav · 2020-10-26T12:17:38Z

 	query PullRequestForBranch($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $headRefName: String!) {
 		repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
-			pullRequests(headRefName: $headRefName, states: OPEN, first: 30) {
+			pullRequests(headRefName: $headRefName, first: 30) {


This fixes an immediate problem, but causes another one.

PullRequestForBranch is called in two places:

find the PR for a branch, e.g. in pr view;

check if there are open PRs for a branch during pr create.

This change would break the feature described in (2).

I think the solution should be to have PullRequestForBranch accept an argument that dictates whether we're searching through open PRs or all PRs regardless of state. Also, when searching over all PRs, precedence should still be given to an open PR if one exists, even if a closed PR for the same branch exists and is chronologically newer.

bill3tt · 2020-10-26T23:18:14Z

 	return client.REST(repo.RepoHost(), "DELETE", path, nil, nil)
 }

+// sortPRsByPrecedence in the following order: OPEN, MERGED, CLOSED


If there is a neater way of doing this (for example in the GraphQL query) then I am all ears! 👂

Our GraphQL API doesn't allow sorting by state, so doing it in memory like this is fine!

bill3tt · 2020-10-26T23:25:25Z

@samcoe / @mislav - thank you both for the swift & helpful review 🙌 I have attempted to address both of your comments in the subsequent commits.

Couple of things to point out:

No client-side validation of the filters passed into the function. This feels reasonable as these cannot be supplied by the user.
Order of precedence I have gone with for PRs is OPEN, MERGED, CLOSED - do shout if you other preferences for this ordering.

mislav

Thanks for the updates! Minor notes:

mislav · 2020-10-27T19:33:57Z

 	return client.REST(repo.RepoHost(), "DELETE", path, nil, nil)
 }

+// sortPRsByPrecedence in the following order: OPEN, MERGED, CLOSED


Our GraphQL API doesn't allow sorting by state, so doing it in memory like this is fine!

mislav · 2020-10-27T19:37:54Z

+		if (prs[b].State == "MERGED" && prs[a].State =="CLOSED") || 
+			(prs[b].State == "OPEN" && prs[a].State =="CLOSED") || 
+			(prs[b].State == "OPEN" && prs[a].State == "MERGED") {


Since you're only sorting by open-first (other states do not matter), I think you can get away with simply:

return prs[a].State == "OPEN"

In this case, you might want to use SliceStable instead of Slice to preserve the original order of records that rank the same.

Makes sense :) Updated this function, test & comment to reflect this.

samcoe

Thanks for making the requested changes. This looks good to me, had just one small naming comment 👍

samcoe · 2020-10-28T07:53:06Z

 }

+// sortPRsByPrecedence ensures that OPEN PRs precede non-open states (MERGED, CLOSED)
+func sortPRsByPrecedence(prs []PullRequest) []PullRequest {


One small nit is that can we name this sortPullRequestsByState?

of course 😁

This method doesn't necessarily search through open pull requests.

mislav

Thank you for your hard work! <3

bill3tt · 2020-10-28T16:52:32Z

Thanks to you both for the swift & helpful reviews 🙌

bill3tt changed the title ~~Allow gh pr view to view closed PRs~~ Allow gh pr view <closed_pr_branch_name> to view closed PRs Oct 23, 2020

mislav suggested changes Oct 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

bill3tt commented Oct 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

mislav suggested changes Oct 27, 2020

View reviewed changes

samcoe approved these changes Oct 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

Ian Billett and others added 4 commits October 28, 2020 15:50

Allow PullRequestForBranch to search in closed pull requests

0f61272

PullRequestForBranch: fix outdated error message

2ac68cc

This method doesn't necessarily search through open pull requests.

💅 simplify sortPullRequestsByState

d09561d

💅 code style

fb621d2

mislav force-pushed the view-closed-prs branch from 1c24307 to fb621d2 Compare October 28, 2020 14:51

mislav approved these changes Oct 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

mislav merged commit e093d23 into cli:trunk Oct 28, 2020

coderabbitai Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2026

feat(ci): shift checks left to PRs and formalize draft-PR-first workflow JovieInc/Jovie#6742

Merged

4 tasks

lsm mentioned this pull request Apr 3, 2026

feat: add endNodeId to built-in workflow templates lsm/neokai#1241

Merged

coderabbitai Bot mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

Add triage-pr-comments skill catena-labs/dev-skills#7

Merged

5 tasks

Conversation

bill3tt commented Oct 23, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

samcoe commented Oct 26, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bill3tt commented Oct 26, 2020

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samcoe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mislav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bill3tt commented Oct 28, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

bill3tt commented Oct 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading

samcoe commented Oct 26, 2020 •

edited

Loading