CNDB-9877: Update PR template

[jacek-lewandowski]

What is the issue

n/a

What does this PR fix and why was it fixed

n/a

Checklist before you submit for review

• Make sure there is a PR in the CNDB project updating the Converged Cassandra version
• Use NoSpamLogger for log lines that may appear frequently in the logs
• Verify test results on Butler
• Test coverage for new/modified code is > 80%
• Proper code formatting
• Proper title for each commit staring with the project-issue number, like CNDB-1234
• Each commit has a meaningful description
• Each commit is not very long and contains related changes
• Renames, moves and reformatting are in distinct commits

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[jacek-lewandowski]

This is a test comment 2024-10-31T14:11:20.585555532Z

[sbtourist]

Suggested change

	- [ ] Make sure there is a PR in the CNDB project updating the Converged Cassandra version if your PR is changing the API
	- [ ] Make sure there is a PR in the CNDB project updating the Converged Cassandra version if your PR affects CNDB.

The question is, how do we know the PR affects CNDB? For example it could be a HCD change and indirectly affect CNDB. What do you think?

[jacek-lewandowski]

isn't a similar problem as we have with Stargate-CNDB relation? Stargate uses CNDB coordinator as an impl so we run stargate internal tests against that implementation;

I think the bare minimum would be to compile CNDB against the CC artifact produced in from the feature branch as a step in CC gating

[sbtourist]

Suggested change

	- [ ] Each commit contains related changes
	- [ ] Each commit is specific to the issue it's addressing

[sbtourist]

I would still drop this one, as I think most of the time it would generate more - artificially separated - work.

[jacek-lewandowski]

I can drop it, but it is just a friendly reminder - personally I'd not start reviewing a PR which mixes renamings and major reformattings with the code changes - just with "how to write tests" - it is just sharing "how to"

[sbtourist]

I don't quite agree with this: in a complex distributed system, integration tests are fundamental and should not be discouraged even if unit tests exist.

[jacek-lewandowski]

though starting nodes over and over again should be avoided - if we are adding a test case to the test class which already has some shared containers running - that's fine; however we should design tests having the testing time in mind;

[sbtourist]

Agreed, but this is more of a general "know how to write efficient tests" issue?

[jacek-lewandowski]

indeed; though PR template seems to be an efficient way to share that knowledge to the most appropriate audience, isn't it?