Add ticket numbering to the CircleCI requirements

[ambid17]

when a PR is made, a CI check should be added to make sure:

• the issue number is in the commit message
• the ticket is in progress,
• the ticket is assigned to the person creating the PR

[Fabricevladimir]

Can you provide an example?

[arkus7]

I think there is no such thingy out of the box.
I couldn't find anything about it, we could prepare custom GitHub check basing on this article: https://developer.github.com/apps/quickstart-guides/creating-ci-tests-with-the-checks-api/

[arkus7]

@ambid17 I think I found a solution for that, but I need to get more info from you about this.

1. What types of branches do we want to allow for creation?
   I think the common ones are from gitflow:
   • feature
   • bugfix
   • hotfix
   • release
2. Do we use JIRA-like system for assigning branches to issues, eg. olR as the key of the project, so the feature branch for issue add dev.oneleif.com subdomain with develop CI #111 will be feature/olR-111-rest-of-branch-name?
   If so, what should be the project key for this repository?
3. Do we really want to block the users to post commits to the issue assigned to a specific issue? I'm not sure if this is a good approach because the assignee can be away and another member would like to end his PR - we would need to change the assignee to allow them to do this. Also, not sure if on commit level I can check what is the committer GitHub username - I'll check that.
4. Do we check branch only or commits too? In other words, do we want to enforce the branch naming policy only, or we want contributors to add the key to the issue in every commit message (I'd say it is pain in the ass, but that's what the issue describes 🤔)?

[arkus7]

For 4. I think there could be some automation available, but I'd have to research that.

[ambid17]

1. Correct, those are the only ones necessary

2. i think a key is unnecessary since we are in separate repos. I think just 111-branch-name is sufficient unless you see another reason i do not :)

3. you're right it's unnecessary, the ticket is really all that matters because they are assigned to it

4. just branch name, commits are definitely a PITA

[will-nemo]

1. That works for me.
2. I would love to follow the jira naming process but we can't really enforce that. on my own projects i've done the same.
3. Agreed.
4. branch only