[PATCH] D133476: [automation] Add scripts to automate GitHub projects

[Tobias Hieta via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

thieta added a comment.

In D133476#3817387 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133476#3817387>, @kwk wrote:

> I agree. That's why I in `ghgql` I focused on the simplicity of making a and accessing the result. In general I find it weird to handle exceptions in that case which is why I've *deferred* them from the call to GraphQL to the inspection of results. That said, an `{"errors": ...}" result doesn't raise an exception but returns a regular `Result` object that you can ask for errors or simply just access the thing you're looking for. If you call `Result.get("foo.bar")` but an "errors" is present, an exception is raised. I had the feeling that this makes more sense.
>
> If possible I'd like to keep `ghgql` well tested so you can rely on it. It is very very slim and most of the code is for doing the releases. For me this was an experiment to try out python packaging and it works quite nice now. On each successful push to master and tests, a new version is released.

I tried to port my changes over to ghgql - and it seems to work mostly. I filed two issues in the ghgql repo where this one: https://github.com/kwk/ghgql/issues/5 is currently the biggest blocker.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133476/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133476