Use GitHub workflow Action to Approve PR creation from GitHub Issue

[arunazhakesan]

We should implement this to Mandate PR creation to require an explicit approval comment from a repo maintainer on an Issue discussion.

https://github.com/marketplace/actions/approve-pr-creation-from-issue

This is a GitHub workflow Action that enforces PR authors to first open an issue, discuss, and get explicit approval from repo maintainers via an issue comment before opening a PR. The PR must include a reference to that approval comment in the body, otherwise the PR is auto-closed. The goal is to reduce the burden on repo maintainers by preventing unsolicited or undesirable PRs.

@GMishx @KoukiHama

[bibhuti230185]

@arunazhakesan @GMishx While requiring issue creation before PRs seems logical, this may lead to issue flooding instead of PR flooding. We'll have low-quality issues + low-quality PRs, doubling the review burden rather than reducing it. Contributors may create minimal issues just to satisfy the requirement without proper analysis.

The core issue we're seeing is:

• Contributors (especially using AI) don't understand SW360's architecture
• PRs submitted without manual testing or verification - Code that compiles but doesn't work in real SW360
• Missing awareness of coding standards and patterns - Generic AI code that doesn't follow our conventions
• No accountability for code quality - Submit and forget, leaving reviewers to find all issues

Proposed Solution

Instead of blocking contributions, I propose raising the quality bar at PR submission through:

1. Enhanced PR Templates with Type-Specific Checklists

For Bug Fixes:

• ✅ Failing test demonstrating the bug
• ✅ Root cause analysis
• ✅ Test passing after fix
• ✅ Impact analysis

For Features:

• ✅ Architecture explanation (how it fits SW360 layers)
• ✅ Integration tests
• ✅ Performance impact analysis
• ✅ API documentation

For AI-Assisted PRs:

• ✅ Tool/model disclosed (GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.)
• ✅ Architecture understanding in contributor's own words
• ✅ What AI suggested vs. what they changed
• ✅ Manual testing evidence
• ✅ Edge cases explicitly listed

2. Automated Quality Gates (Before Human Review)

• ✅ PR template completion check (reject if <60% complete)
• ✅ Issue reference validation (required for non-trivial PRs, auto-exempt docs/typos)

[bibhuti230185]

@arunazhakesan and @GMishx My Suggestion added here #4052