# Suspected witch keeps me up all night with a stream of ritual incantations **URL:** \ **Category:** Core Workflow\ **Created:** [May 10, 2022, 5:21pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/suspected-witch-keeps-me-up-all-night-with-a-stream-of-ritual-incantations/15654 "2022-05-10T17:21:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CAM-Gerlach](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/cam-gerlach/32/3688_2.png) [@CAM-Gerlach](https://discuss.python.org/u/CAM-Gerlach)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2022, 5:21pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/suspected-witch-keeps-me-up-all-night-with-a-stream-of-ritual-incantations/15654/1 "2022-05-10T17:21:12Z")
As I [brought up](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/92608#issuecomment-1122020311) on [one such example](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/92608), miss-isslington seems to be rather noisy on backport PRs. It posted no less than 17 comments (@-ing both me and the committer, which AFAIK will re-subscribe both of us even if we unsubscribe) over a three hour period, all but one or two were just either stating the status check had succeeded or that they were still in progress, and thus not really necessary/actionable. Adding a few other events times @-ing two people (me, the author, and @storchaka , the committer) and a team auto-requested for review, times three backport PRs, one for each bugfix branch, adds up to potentially _several hundred notifications_. That seems likely to consume a non-trivial amount of contributor and core dev attention—a commodity in perpetually short supply. Can the bot instead just make _one_ comment initially when the status check passes or fails, and then only comment once on an _actionable_ state change? This might also help with the API ratelimit issues mentioned previously, if they are still a problem. It seems there are several [open issues](https://github.com/python/miss-islington/issues) and at least [one PR](https://github.com/python/miss-islington/pull/481) on the [bot’s repo](https://github.com/python/miss-islington/), but it doesn’t look like there was much discussion or activity on them over there, and I wanted to bring it up here to cast a wider net for feedback as to the impacts of this on others and what the desired solution is. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Jelle](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/jelle/32/1049_2.png) [@Jelle](https://discuss.python.org/u/Jelle)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2022, 6:09pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/suspected-witch-keeps-me-up-all-night-with-a-stream-of-ritual-incantations/15654/2 "2022-05-10T18:09:59Z")
Miss Islington is indeed a bit noisy. I think we can just completely remove the “Status check has failed/succeeded” comments; for my workflow at least, they’re not useful. ---
**Author:** ![ezio-melotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@ezio-melotti](https://discuss.python.org/u/ezio-melotti)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2022, 9:01pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/suspected-witch-keeps-me-up-all-night-with-a-stream-of-ritual-incantations/15654/3 "2022-05-10T21:01:47Z")
We discussed this briefly on Discord, and it seems to me that: - she sends a notification for each check that completes, as soon as it completes - since some checks are optional, they might trigger notifications after the PR has been already merged - sometimes checks fail immediately before some labels are (automatically) applied, and that triggers a failure notification even if the problem is fixed shortly thereafter (see e.g. [[3.11] Enhance PyConfig documentation (GH-92394) by miss-islington · Pull Request #92553 · python/cpython · GitHub](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/92553)) I think the notifications are useful in two situations: - while waiting for all the mandatory checks to pass, in case the author wants to merge the backport manually and be notified when they are done - in this case a single message when they all passed is enough - the message could be skipped if the PR is going to be automerged - when one or more optional checks fails after the merge - in this case the message should be posted only in case of failure - it should link to the failed check This is an example of optional check that failed after the merge: [[3.10] gh-80856: doc: reveal doctest directives (GH-92318) by miss-islington · Pull Request #92494 · python/cpython · GitHub](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/92494#issuecomment-1120464821) (note that it doesn’t say which check failed, but I was able to figure it out from the issue).