This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
terrymanu pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/shardingsphere.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 0a138a324c6 Add duplicate prior-fix check to analyze-issue skill
(#38735)
0a138a324c6 is described below
commit 0a138a324c607a2a836005f94fbb0d66d94e159a
Author: Liang Zhang <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Wed May 27 22:01:06 2026 +0800
Add duplicate prior-fix check to analyze-issue skill (#38735)
* Add duplicate prior-fix check to analyze-issue skill
* Add duplicate prior-fix check to analyze-issue skill
---
.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
index b10090e02cf..8a4d11cc476 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ Use only the following sources:
- Apache ShardingSphere official documentation.
- Apache ShardingSphere official repository code and tests.
- Target GitHub issue content (body, comments, and linked PRs in the same
repository).
+- Same-repository GitHub issues/PRs needed to verify a duplicate or prior fix
relationship.
Do not use blogs, third-party tutorials, or forum posts as evidence.
@@ -89,6 +90,29 @@ Triage decision:
- Misconfigured or unsupported usage -> Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage
- Reproducible mismatch between expected and actual behavior -> Bug
- Intended new capability or behavior evolution -> Enhancement
+- Same root cause already fixed or tracked by an earlier issue/PR -> Duplicate
+
+## Duplicate / Prior Fix Check
+
+Before finalizing `Bug` or `Enhancement`, check whether the same root cause
has already been fixed or tracked in the Apache ShardingSphere repository:
+1. Search by the issue's error message, exception class, key SQL token,
affected class/method, and module labels.
+2. Use same-repository evidence only: target issue links/comments, GitHub
issues/PRs in `apache/shardingsphere`, `git log --grep`, `git log -S`, and
relevant file history.
+3. If the current upstream target branch, normally `apache/master`, or the
release branch matching the reporter's version already contains an explicit fix,
+ identify the fixing PR or original tracked issue whenever possible.
+4. Record the fixing PR number, merge state, merge commit, linked issue,
target milestone/version, and changed module/class evidence when available.
+5. If a fixing PR or original issue is found and covers the same root cause,
classify the new issue as `Duplicate` instead of a fresh `Bug` or `Enhancement`.
+6. If the current upstream target branch appears fixed but no fixing PR/issue
can be identified after a reasonable search,
+ say `already fixed on the current upstream target branch` and keep the
primary type as `Bug` or `Enhancement` as appropriate.
+
+Before classifying an issue as `Duplicate`, check the evidence against at
least one relevant counterexample or negative scenario:
+1. Same error message but different affected class, SQL token, configuration,
or call path -> do not classify as `Duplicate`.
+2. Same symptom but the fixing PR is not merged into the upstream target
branch -> do not say `already fixed`;
+ classify as `Bug`, `Enhancement`, or `Needs More Info` as appropriate.
+3. Same root cause fixed on the upstream target branch but not available in
the reporter's release version -> state the fixed branch/version clearly
+ and ask the reporter to verify with a version that includes the fix.
+4. Same linked issue/PR exists but does not cover the same trigger condition
and root-cause chain -> do not close as duplicate.
+
+For `Duplicate`, the maintainer reply should link the original PR/issue,
recommend `type: duplicate`, and close as duplicate unless the reporter can
still reproduce on a version that includes the fix.
## Reasonability Gate
@@ -151,6 +175,7 @@ Mention topology in the default maintainer reply only when
it changes the suppor
- Question
- Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage
- Bug
+ - Duplicate
- Enhancement
5. If behavior changes are needed, explain scope and compatibility impact.
@@ -193,9 +218,11 @@ Before final conclusion, provide issue type and label
recommendations:
- Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage: recommend `type: question`, `status:
invalid`
- Bug: recommend `type: bug`, optionally with module/database labels (for
example `in: SQL parse`, `db: SQLServer`)
- Enhancement: recommend `type: enhancement`, and optionally `status:
volunteer wanted` to invite community contribution
+- Duplicate: recommend `type: duplicate`, optionally with module/database
labels when the duplicate scope is clear
-When type is Bug/Enhancement, add module/database labels when evidence is
sufficient:
+When type is Bug/Enhancement/Duplicate, add module/database labels when
evidence is sufficient:
- Parser-related -> `in: SQL parse`
+- SQL bind-related -> `in: SQL bind`
- Routing/rewrite/execution core -> `in: Kernel`
- Proxy runtime/protocol -> `in: Proxy`
- JDBC driver behavior -> `in: JDBC`
@@ -237,13 +264,20 @@ Default to maintainer replies shaped by the issue type:
- Recommend `type: bug` plus module/database labels.
- Do not provide temporary workarounds.
-4. Enhancement
+4. Duplicate
+- State that the issue is covered by the earlier fixing PR or original tracked
issue.
+- Briefly explain the shared root cause using issue evidence and repository
code/PR evidence.
+- Recommend verifying with a version that includes the fixing PR.
+- Recommend `type: duplicate` plus clear module/database labels, then close as
duplicate.
+- Do not invite a new PR unless the reporter can still reproduce on a version
that includes the fix.
+
+5. Enhancement
- Acknowledge the requested behavior as new or changed capability.
- Explain design questions, compatibility impact, and expected tests before
accepting implementation.
- Invite community contribution when suitable.
- Recommend `type: enhancement` and optionally `status: volunteer wanted`.
-5. Needs More Info
+6. Needs More Info
- Ask only for facts that block classification or root-cause judgment.
- Use one concise consolidated list and set a 7-14 day follow-up window.
- Recommend `status: need more info`.
@@ -278,6 +312,13 @@ This looks like a bug in <module/path> because <documented
expected behavior> do
The fix should cover <key classes/paths> and include <test scope>.
Contributors are welcome to submit a PR with code and tests.
```
+Duplicate:
+```markdown
+Hi @user, thanks for reporting this.
+This is a duplicate of #<issue-or-pr>, which already fixed or tracks the same
root cause in <module/class>.
+Please verify with a version that includes #<fix-pr>. I suggest labeling this
as `type: duplicate` and closing it as duplicate.
+```
+
Enhancement:
```markdown
Hi @user, thanks for the suggestion.
@@ -329,7 +370,7 @@ Use this section for the default appended Reference
Analysis and for explicit Re
- When posting directly to GitHub through an API or tool, submit only the
inner GitHub-facing issue analysis body and do not include the outer fence.
- Apply formatting self-checks to the inner GitHub-facing body, not to the
chat delivery wrapper.
-In Reference Analysis mode, use this GitHub Markdown skeleton for Question and
Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage:
+In Reference Analysis mode, use this GitHub Markdown skeleton for Question,
Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage, and Duplicate:
```markdown
### Problem Understanding
@@ -346,7 +387,7 @@ In Reference Analysis mode, use this GitHub Markdown
skeleton for Question and M
### Problem Analysis
-- **Issue Type:** Question / Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage
+- **Issue Type:** Question / Misunderstanding / Invalid Usage / Duplicate
- **Evidence:** ...
- **Label Recommendation:** ...
@@ -356,6 +397,9 @@ In Reference Analysis mode, use this GitHub Markdown
skeleton for Question and M
- **Impact Scope:** ...
- **Topology:** JDBC/Proxy + Standalone/Cluster
- **Issue Type:** ...
+- **Duplicate Of:** #issue-or-pr (Duplicate only)
+- **Fix PR:** #pr (Duplicate only)
+- **Merged In:** commit/milestone/version if known (Duplicate only)
- **Recommended Labels:** ...
- **Next Action:** ...
```
@@ -401,7 +445,7 @@ In Reference Analysis mode, use this GitHub Markdown
skeleton for Bug and Enhanc
- **Regression Scope:** ...
```
-- Reference four-section structure for Question and Misunderstanding / Invalid
Usage: Problem Understanding, Root Cause, Problem Analysis, Problem Conclusion.
+- Reference four-section structure for Question, Misunderstanding / Invalid
Usage, and Duplicate: Problem Understanding, Root Cause, Problem Analysis,
Problem Conclusion.
- Reference five-section structure for Bug and Enhancement: Problem
Understanding, Root Cause, Problem Analysis, Code-Level Design Suggestions,
Problem Conclusion.
At the end of `Problem Conclusion`, append:
@@ -410,6 +454,9 @@ At the end of `Problem Conclusion`, append:
- `Impact Scope: ...`
- `Topology: JDBC/Proxy + Standalone/Cluster`
- `Issue Type: ...`
+- `Duplicate Of: #issue-or-pr` (Duplicate required)
+- `Fix PR: #pr` (Duplicate required when a fixing PR is found)
+- `Merged In: commit/milestone/version if known` (Duplicate required when
known)
- `Recommended Labels: ...`
- `Next Action: ...`
