Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We're now using a range of GitHub templates, automations, bots, actions etc., which are well understood to those of use who've been around to see them implemented and get involved in the conversations about them. But all this stuff is likely to be confusing to new joiners.

Describe the solution you'd like
Add some READMEs (to a section of this repo or in a new repo) explaining how we use git and GitHub.

Describe alternatives you've considered
We could also broaden this out to cover other aspects of what we expect from engineers to make our engineering culture more explicit.

Describe the bug

badges.bar has been shut down bruno-garcia/badges.bar#27

Steps to reproduce

1. First I browse to a repo with one of our pub.dev packages e.g. https://github.com/atsign-foundation/at_libraries/tree/trunk/packages/at_contact
2. Then I see that the pub points badge is missing:
   

Expected behavior

Badge should show pub points, we can fix this by using shields.io badges instead:

badges.bar/sentry/pub%20points use instead:img.shields.io/pub/points/sentry?logo=dart

What i am suggesting to update ?

I am suggesting to update the Issue templates , currently we are using .md files instead of the brand new issue forms with .yml files.

Why to update it ?

Adding an issue Template allows you to organize the issues made by folks in a much better way.

• We can know if someone wants to write a test or maybe fix something.
• The issue template forms makes writing details more efficient
• We have a required tag which makes adding details more efficient !
• Here's a general idea :

Can i work on it ?

Yes, i will be glad to help an Opensource project grow more !

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Retro from PR36

Describe the solution you'd like
Drop down for type of change

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The README.md hasn't been updated in some time, and could probably do with a facelift.

Describe the solution you'd like

Reorganize the things we want to show first
Less text, more images / space.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

We should also do this for atsign-labs

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Workflow dispatch action to publish pub packages

• needs to dart format
• dart analyze
• dry run
• publish

args:

• branch
• package / path

Describe the solution you'd like

N/A

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Currently some of our packages have a pub score of less than 130 points and there isn't a GitHub workflow for us to check the pub score before merging a PR.

Describe the solution you'd like

A GitHub workflow that will only allow PR's with a pub points of 130 or more to be merged on the below package repos.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

We are seeing deprecation warnings for google-chat-notification:

Node.js 12 actions are deprecated. For more information see: https://github.blog/changelog/2022-09-22-github-actions-all-actions-will-begin-running-on-node16-instead-of-node12/. Please update the following actions to use Node.js 16: Co-qn/google-chat-notification@b9227d9

Describe the solution you'd like

Get the upstream action upgraded.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Fork the action and upgrade it ourselves.

Find an alternative action that's actively maintained.

Additional context

Last update to the action was on 18 May 2021 and that was also the last GitHub activity by the maintainer @Co-qn

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Add a docs item explaining the sprint planning process so that we can remove some of the biweekly sprint prep messaging.

Describe the solution you'd like

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

set-output has been deprecated by GitHub, leading to warnings in Actions:

Describe the solution you'd like

Update workflows that use set-output to make use of alternative $GITHUB_OUTPUT mechanism.

How to Patch the Deprecated set-output in GitHub Workflows and in Container Actions provides guidance for the set-output changes needed.

atsign-company/at_dockerfiles#66 provides an example of a workflow where this has already been done.

Whilst updating the workflows please also run them through the StepSecurity Secure Workflow to constrain token permissions and pin dependencies.

Update the repo descriptions for all the repos pinned in the profile readme.

Proposed descriptions:

• Propose the intended changes with the team
• Migrate necessary Priority items to Type
• Migrate SP and PR (after PR53 planning)
• Migrate necessary Status items to Type
• Add the new views
• Teach the team how to use the new views effectively
• Update reminder @ksanty
• Update Planning Poker Export Scripts @XavierChanth
• Simplify Status items (removing certain fields)
• Remove the old views
• Update GItHub readme

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

At present there isn't a clear external indicator that Atsign repos are properly secured. This will allow us to 'Show Off Your Security Score'

Describe the solution you'd like

Add OSSF Scorecard Action to the repos featured on our org profile:

• at_client_sdk
• at_widgets
• at_demos
• docs.atsign.com
• sshnoports
• at_app
• at_server
• dess
• at_tools
• at_libraries
• at_protocol
• mwc_demo

Add the badges to READMEs so that the security is visible.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Much of what we do in GitHub Actions can't be run locally.

Describe the solution you'd like

See if Dagger might provide a cleaner mechanism for CI/CD that can be run locally and via GitHub Actions.

Original note: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g4wEiZa4uhaBDIzBk7DLb1JRA89rrv4p2OXo0VK66K0/edit#

Planned maintenance: @gkc and @XavierChanth aim to complete over the weekend of July 1st.

Repos and Packages

The main problem with cross repo deps right now is between at_tools and at_libraries:

(on the left is at_tools, on the right is at_libraries)

Original notes:
I propose that we move at_commons and at_utils to at_libraries, this would make it so that at_libraries contains the things we depend on, and limit at_tools to niche cases where packages are depended on.

Beyond that the sshnoports repo can become something along the lines of “no ports oss” and add a package folder to the repo.

at_talk could be moved to at_tools.

at_lorawan could be moved to at_services?

Reasoning for these changes: to make things more maintainable in at_mono, and the org in general.

See page 2 for proposed next steps

Post Changes Repo purposes:
At_tools - products and close to products
At_dev_tools - developer tools
At_libraries - dependencies and libraries
At_demos - demo code

Next steps:
Packages currently in at_tools move to at_libraries (at_utils + at_commons)
Rename at_tools to at_dev_tools
(at_cram, at_pkam, at_cli, at_hive_rec., at_ve_doc., at_dump_atKeys)
Rename sshnoports repo to at_tools
Refactor sshnoports to have a packages folder
Rename current at_demos repo to at_demos_archive and archive it
Create new at_demos repo
Move at_talk to at_demos
Move at_lorawan to at_demos

Summary of the work done

• Import at_utils to at_libraries (PR 1)
• Import at_commons to at_libraries (PR 2)
• Import Murali's PR to at_libaries (PR 3, It was ready for review so I think it can be merged)
• Update the at_libraries README with at_utils and at_commons descriptions
• Remove at_commons and at_utils from at_tools
  • [!] Before we merge this we should update the repo URL on pub.dev