[Bug] PR quality-gates regex incorrectly patterns `fixe[sd]` — intent is unclear and fragile

[RUKAYAT-CODER]

Overview

.github/workflows/pr-quality-gates.yml line 23 contains a regex meant to match PR closing keywords (close, fix, resolve and their variants). The pattern fix(e[sd])? is confusing and diverges from standard GitHub closing keyword syntax. A simpler, explicit alternation removes ambiguity and ensures all documented variants are matched correctly.

Specifications

Features:

• PR body regex reliably matches all documented linking keywords: close, closes, closed, fix, fixed, fixes, resolve, resolves, resolved

Tasks:

• Replace the current regex with an explicit alternation: (close[sd]?|fix(ed|es)?|resolve[sd]?)\s+#\d+
• Add test cases validating each keyword variant against the pattern
• Document the expected keyword format in CONTRIBUTING.md

Impacted Files:

• .github/workflows/pr-quality-gates.yml
• CONTRIBUTING.md

Acceptance Criteria

• All nine documented closing keywords are matched correctly
• PRs without an issue reference are blocked
• PRs with any valid keyword + issue number pass the gate

[quickweb-stack]

@quickweb-stack has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

This issue aligns well with my experience. I can work on it and submit a polished PR for review.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @quickweb-stack to this issue.

[collinsezedike]

@collinsezedike has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

The suggested replacement pattern has a real gap worth fixing before implementing it verbatim: (close[sd]?|fix(ed|es)?|resolve[sd]?)\s+#\d+ has no word boundary at the start, so it would match "close" inside "enclose #123" as a false positive, and it's not explicitly case-insensitive, while GitHub's actual keyword matching is. Copying the suggested regex as-is would just trade one fragile pattern for a different fragile one.

Here's my plan:

• Use \b(close[sd]?|fix(ed|es)?|resolve[sd]?)\s+#\d+\b with a \b word boundary before the keyword group and the i flag for case-insensitivity, matching GitHub's actual closing-keyword behavior rather than just the issue's suggested pattern literally
• Replace the current fragile fix(e[sd])? regex in pr-quality-gates.yml:23 with this corrected version
• Add test cases for each of the nine documented keywords (close, closes, closed, fix, fixed, fixes, resolve, resolves, resolved), each paired with an issue number
• Add negative test cases: no keyword present, a keyword as a substring of another word (e.g. "enclose", "prefixed"), and a keyword with no issue number following it, confirming none of these false-positive
• Document the expected keyword format in CONTRIBUTING.md, listing all nine valid keywords and the required #<number> format
• Confirm the gate still correctly blocks PRs with no valid reference and passes PRs with any of the nine keywords properly formatted

Happy to start as soon as I'm assigned.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @collinsezedike to this issue.

[xtrial01]

@xtrial01 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

Hi maintainer, I can fix this issue

Kindly assign

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @xtrial01 to this issue.

[Jerry-Tekh]

@Jerry-Tekh has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

Hi , maintainer . I am here on the repo. my review on your repo has been always grate. Permit me work on this pleease. Issue i solves are correctly merged. i am ready to start this work. And i will fix it correctly . thank you.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @Jerry-Tekh to this issue.

[ayaoba24]

@ayaoba24 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

Please assign me.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @ayaoba24 to this issue.

[Nacho1499]

@Nacho1499 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

Hello Maintainer,

I am Nacho, a full-stack developer, and I’d love to contribute to the project.

I’ve reviewed the issue requirements, and my approach would be:

1. Review the current PR quality-gate workflow in .github/workflows/pr-quality-gates.yml to understand how the existing regex is used to validate issue-closing references.

2. Replace the current ambiguous regex with the explicit pattern:

   (close[sd]?|fix(ed|es)?|resolve[sd]?)\s+#\d+

   This will clearly support all documented GitHub closing keyword variants.

3. Add test cases for all nine supported keywords:
   close, closes, closed, fix, fixes, fixed, resolve, resolves, and resolved.

4. Verify invalid cases are rejected, including PR descriptions without a valid closing keyword and issue number.

5. Update CONTRIBUTING.md to clearly document the expected format for linking and closing issues in pull requests.

6. Test the workflow behavior to ensure PRs containing any valid keyword followed by an issue number pass the quality gate, while PRs without a valid issue reference are correctly blocked.

I’ll keep the changes focused on the affected workflow and documentation, while ensuring the regex behavior is clear, maintainable, and properly covered by tests.

If the issue is still available, I’d really appreciate the opportunity to be assigned to it. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to contributing to the project!

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @Nacho1499 to this issue.

[solaawojobi00-bit]

@solaawojobi00-bit has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 8th wave.

I’ll take this on. In ⁠.github/workflows/pr-quality-gates.yml⁠, the PR body regex currently relies on a confusing pattern (⁠fix(e[sd])?⁠) that diverges from standard GitHub syntax and risks misidentifying valid PR closing keywords—I can update the regex to an explicit alternation ⁠(close[sd]?|fix(ed|es)?|resolve[sd]?)\s+#\d+⁠ to cleanly cover all nine documented variants (⁠close⁠, ⁠closes⁠, ⁠closed⁠, ⁠fix⁠, ⁠fixed⁠, ⁠fixes⁠, ⁠resolve⁠, ⁠resolves⁠, ⁠resolved⁠). I'll also add test cases to validate each keyword variant, enforce blocking behavior for PRs lacking issue references, and document the expected linking syntax in ⁠CONTRIBUTING.md⁠. Kindly assign it to me

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @solaawojobi00-bit to this issue.

[drips-wave]

Congratulations, @Nacho1499! 🎉 Your application was accepted by the repo's maintainers, and the issue is due on August 31, 2026.

🧑‍💻 @Nacho1499: Please resolve the issue such that the repo's maintainers have enough time to review your contribution before the due date. You'll earn Points for completing the issue on-time, which will make you eligible for a share of the Stellar Wave Program's reward pool.

Warning

When opening a PR, please link it to this issue to ensure it gets tracked accurately. Points are awarded when this issue is marked as completed by the maintainer.

🤠 Repo maintainers: Please keep an eye on the contributor's progress and review their work before the due date. You can manage this issue, including adjusting its complexity and points, here.

🌊 Happy Wave 🌊

[grantfox-oss]

🎉 This issue has been marked as completed on GrantFox as part of the Third Campaign campaign!

@Nacho1499's PR #1242 was approved and merged by @RUKAYAT-CODER.

🏆 @Nacho1499: You earned 35 FoxPoints for this contribution! Your current tier: Explorer (672 total points). Track your full progress on GrantFox.

👏 Great work, @Nacho1499! Keep contributing to rinafcode.