Running CoreCLR tests on Mono - Refactor the issues.target file to better categorize for different OS/architecture specific failures

[SamMonoRT]

Referring to comments in PR : #33176
Refactor the issues.target file to better categorize for different OS/architecture specific failures

[Dotnet-GitSync-Bot]

I couldn't add an area label to this Issue.

Checkout this page to find out which area owner to ping, or please add exactly one area label to help train me in the future.

[SamMonoRT]

@ViktorHofer @jeffschwMSFT @dleeapho - any suggestion on how to have the Bot add the area-Infrastructure label to it, OR is there any specific label we should use for test infrastructure related issues ?

[jeffschwMSFT]

@jashook @trylek

[trylek]

@SamMonoRT - I believe there's a slightly more specific label "area-infrastructure-mono" but I'm not sure if it's applicable here as the suggested refactoring is supposed to target both mono and coreclr so I guess area-infrastructure is the proper label. AFAIK the bot uses some machine learning to conjure the default labels to PR's but I'm not sure if I'm getting how the bot could "understand" an issue and assign it an area label. Apologies if I missed the point of your comment.

[SamMonoRT]

The Bot comment above "I couldn't add an area label to this Issue." threw me off. I don't think it is considering the area-Infrastructure label as a valid label ? I had added that label when I created the issue.

[jeffschwMSFT]

@maryamariyan

[trylek]

@SamMonoRT - I agree that's definitely weird. It's either a bug in the sense that, as issues and PR's share the same ID sequence, the bot may be incorrectly thinking it's a PR, or there's some additional logic trying to kick in (e.g. when you link an issue to a PR, I guess in such case I can imagine some area autodetection can take place) and fails to.

[SamMonoRT]

There maybe some warnings/error in the training logic is that is indeed true. I'll leave it as it is for now, and hopefully @maryamariyan has a suggetion.