[rodri-oliveira-dev]

Summary

Provide a consistent GitHub Issues intake flow for Dapper FluentMap without changing how existing issues or automation-created issues work.

New issue forms

• Bug Report: affected FluentMap package and version, .NET and Dapper versions, database provider, reproduction steps, expected/actual behavior, and optional code or logs.
• Documentation Issue: affected page or path, problem type, expected guidance, and optional suggested correction.
• Enhancement / Engineering Task: actionable problem statement, implementation scope, objective acceptance criteria, and compatibility considerations.
• Maintenance / Technical Debt: component, technical problem, bounded scope, validation plan, and risks.

Issue chooser

• Disable blank issue creation for regular contributors while preserving GitHub's maintainer-only blank issue option for users with write access.
• Route usage questions and early-stage ideas to Discussions.
• Direct security-sensitive reports to the repository Security page rather than public Issues.
• Reuse verified existing labels for Bug Report (bug), Documentation Issue (documentation), and Enhancement (enhancement). Maintenance issues remain unlabeled for manual triage rather than assuming an unverified label.

Compatibility and scope

• Documentation-only changes in .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/; no changes to C# APIs, dependencies, published versions, or CI workflows.
• These forms apply to the web issue creation chooser, not GitHub API-created issues. Existing Sonar issue sync and other automations remain unchanged.
• The templates take effect only after merge into the default branch.

Verification

• Added four YAML issue forms and config.yml on a separate feature branch
• Checked required form headers, input fields, and unique field IDs
• Confirmed the diff contains only the five intended files, one commit ahead of main
• After merge, open the New Issue chooser and verify all four templates render, labels populate, and the contact links work

This PR is independent of the already merged Discussions templates (#301).

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Novos recursos

  • Adicionados formulários para relatos de bugs, problemas de documentação, propostas de melhorias e tarefas de manutenção.
  • Os formulários organizam informações como componente afetado, etapas para reproduzir, escopo, critérios de aceitação e resultado esperado.
  • Incluídos links para Discussions e para as opções de reporte de segurança, além de orientações para não publicar informações sensíveis.

• Configuração

  • Desativado o envio de issues em branco.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	⚠️ Failed 2026-10-30T01:47:00.879532Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	e837d84	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A configuração de issues agora oferece formulários para relatos de bugs, problemas de documentação, propostas de melhoria e tarefas de manutenção. Os formulários definem campos obrigatórios e opcionais e indicam canais de contato.

Changes: Entrada e classificação de issues

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Canais de contato e relatos de bugs .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml	A configuração desativa issues em branco e adiciona links para Discussions e segurança. O formulário de bug solicita informações sobre pacote, ambiente, reprodução e comportamentos esperado e observado.
Relatos de documentação .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/documentation.yml	O formulário solicita localização, tipo do problema, descrição do que está errado ou faltando e resultado esperado. Também inclui campos opcionais para sugestão e versão relevante.
Melhorias e manutenção .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/maintenance.yml	Os formulários coletam informações sobre área ou componente, problema, escopo e validação. Também oferecem campos opcionais para compatibilidade, riscos e referências.

Priority: Low

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~12 minutes

Change: Other

Merge Risk: Minimal · up to e837d

The issue forms provide structured intake and working Discussions routing. No merge-blocking issue remains; the change does not affect library behavior.

Pre-merge checks: 5

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check		Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check		O título "docs: standardize issue creation with structured templates" descreve a mudança principal. O PR adiciona formulários estruturados de issue (bug, documentação, melhoria e manutenção) e um conf…
Docstring Coverage		No eligible functions found in the changed files. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff with cyclomatic complexity of at least 2. Documentat…
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Title check

Explanation

O título "docs: standardize issue creation with structured templates" descreve a mudança principal. O PR adiciona formulários estruturados de issue (bug, documentação, melhoria e manutenção) e um config.yml que desativa issues em branco e direciona dúvidas para Discussions. O título é específico e conciso, e um revisor entende a mudança principal ao ler o histórico. Pequena ressalva: o prefixo "docs:" é aceitável, pois os arquivos alterados estão em .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No eligible functions found in the changed files. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff with cyclomatic complexity of at least 2. Documentation-only edits and deletions within surviving functions are included; unchanged diff context and fully deleted functions are excluded. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (5 skipped: 5 unsupported.)

Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[github-actions]

SonarQube Cloud success

The SonarQube Cloud Quality Gate passed for this PR.

Quality Gate status: OK

Metric	Status	Actual	Threshold
new_reliability_rating	OK	1	1
new_security_rating	OK	1	1
new_maintainability_rating	OK	1	1
new_security_hotspots_reviewed	OK	100.0	100

• Open workflow run
• Open SonarQube Cloud dashboard

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!