Update CI failure issue template for objective reports

[csadorf]

Updates the CI failure issue template to focus on the observed failure and exact failing job. Removes the root-cause section, clarifies how to omit inapplicable fields, and asks maintainers to track unresolved bugs separately when a CI failure is mitigated.

[copy-pr-bot]

Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

[coderabbitai]

Navigate logical layers of code changes, visualize relationships, and explore their blast radius.

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository: NVIDIA/cuml/.coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 273924f2-4546-46d3-910a-1ea1b59f751b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e0f7a4e and 24c1024.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ci-failure.md

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 12 included reviews per hour; 11 remain after this review.

---

📝 Summary

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated the CI failure issue template to capture failing jobs and steps, relevant errors, and environment details.
  • Added guidance for recording investigations and confirmed fixes in comments, and tracking unresolved bugs separately before closing a mitigated issue.

Walkthrough

The CI failure issue template now collects objective failure information, job links, failure details, environment values, and investigation follow-up.

Changes

CI failure issue reporting

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update CI failure prompts .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ci-failure.md	The template broadens its scope from test failures to CI failures. It adds prompts for failing jobs, steps, error excerpts, environment values, investigation notes, mitigation, and linked unresolved bugs.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Change: Other

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 24c10

No actionable merge-blocking risk is evident from the supplied context. The template directs unresolved bugs to separate tracking.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: updating the CI failure issue template to promote objective reports.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description explains the problem and key implementation changes. It does not include a GitHub closing keyword and issue reference required by the template, but it is otherwise relevant and mostly …
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create a new PR

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[betatim]

Removing the need for a root cause makes it easier to just file an issue when we see a CI failure. I think that is a good thing.

By the time I have understood the cause of a failure it is as much work to submit a PR that fixes it as it is to file an issue. So removing the need for the root cause makes it easier to file the issue first. Which I think we want for tracking purposes right?

[csadorf]

Removing the need for a root cause makes it easier to just file an issue when we see a CI failure. I think that is a good thing.

By the time I have understood the cause of a failure it is as much work to submit a PR that fixes it as it is to file an issue. So removing the need for the root cause makes it easier to file the issue first. Which I think we want for tracking purposes right?

Yes, exactly. The RCA was always optional, but the revised template is even more clear that this should just be an objective report, no RCA needed and even slightly discouraged if you will.

[csadorf]

/merge