the pull requests by the ones with the label for your language. For example, for Spanish, the label is [`lang-es`](https://github.com/fastapi/fastapi/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc+label%3Alang-es+label%3Aawaiting-review).

You can also review already merged translation PRs. To do this, go to the [closed pull requests](https://github.com/fastapi/fastapi/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed) and filter by your language label. For example, for Spanish, you can use [`lang-es`](https://githu...

    rare occasion we may reject it.

**3. Review**

-   For a valid PR, reviewer (person familiar with the code/functionality)
    checks if the PR looks good or needs additional changes.
-   If all looks good, the reviewer will approve the PR.
-   If a change is needed, the contributor is requested to make the suggested
    change.
-   You make the change and submit it for the review again.

affected test suites too. It makes it much easier to review if your code is
formatted correctly and does not include unnecessary extra changes.

We sometimes reject contributions if we find ourselves performing many review
iterations without making enough progress. Some iteration is expected,
particularly on technically complicated changes, and there's no fixed limit on
the acceptable number of review cycles since it depends so much on the nature

import time
from pathlib import Path
from typing import Any, cast

import httpx
from github import Github
from pydantic import BaseModel, SecretStr
from pydantic_settings import BaseSettings

awaiting_label = "awaiting-review"
lang_all_label = "lang-all"
approved_label = "approved-1"


github_graphql_url = "https://api.github.com/graphql"
questions_translations_category_id = "DIC_kwDOCZduT84CT5P9"

all_discussions_query = """

reservd.dev.thingdust.io
reservd.disrec.thingdust.io
reservd.testing.thingdust.io
reserve-online.com
reserve-online.net
resindevice.io
rest
restaurant
restaurant.bj
resto.bj
review
reviews
revista.bo
rexroth
rg.it
rgr.jp
rhcloud.com
ri.it
ri.us
ribeirao.br
ric.jelastic.vps-host.net
rich
richardli
ricoh
rieti.it
rifu.miyagi.jp
riik.ee

* They are rarely updated after creation and initial review, and then become hard to follow, especially after important decisions are made
* They are not synced with the code to reflect the eventual solution that is committed
* Google Docs is not a "code-oriented" tool, like Markdown can be
* Review in Google Docs is not as simple as a PR code review in GitHub

## Decision

3. **Actively collaborate with us.** We commit real time and attention to everything we review. Low-effort submissions—where code is generated, submitted, and abandoned—waste our limited review capacity.

## What contributors can expect from us

* Suggest a new **feature**.

**Note**: if you do it, then I'm going to ask you to also help others. 😉

## Review Pull Requests { #review-pull-requests }

You can help me review pull requests from others.

Again, please try your best to be kind. 🤗

---

Here's what to keep in mind and how to review a pull request:

### Understand the problem { #understand-the-problem }

name: 'Dependency Review'
on: [pull_request]

permissions:
  contents: read

jobs:
  dependency-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - name: 'Checkout Repository'
        uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - name: 'Dependency Review'

        This allows us to keep them consistent and up-to-date.

        If there are several native speakers commenting on this discussion and
        committing to help review new translations, the FastAPI team will review it