-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
AutoMerge: Allow skipping sequential versions with author-approval criteria #539
Conversation
This might be a problem. If the label was added using the default |
Can we make the "GHA adds a label" step use the custom Of course, maybe we should first verify that the above actually would be an issue. |
We've settled on |
Even if we only get this working for GitHub-hosted packages at first, this still covers the majority of packages, so I still think it'll help reduce the manual registry-committer burden. |
Good point, I think that sounds right.
Yeah, that makes sense. Since this can be done on the GHA by itself, IMO we can work on that once we merge down the stuff here and get RegistryCI updated on General. Then we can try it out and get the authentication working there.
To me this seems overly complicated. Since RegistryCI prints all of the problems it found at once, the author can either approve merging or not knowing that information. I don't really feel like there's more than 1 decision the author actually has, since not approving 1 thing blocks merging (so ultimately they need to decide if they want to merge now or not). I also think this will lead to more questions/issues where folks approve 1 thing but not another and are confused. I think "merge approved" is straightforward and simpler.
Agreed! |
Re- the token, the docs here seem clear that indeed |
For now, probably easier to re-use the existing one (the |
Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]>
src/AutoMerge/cron.jl
Outdated
pr_comment_is_blocking(c::GitHub.Comment) = !occursin("[noblock]", body(c)) | ||
function pr_comment_is_blocking(c::GitHub.Comment) | ||
# Note: `merge_approved` is not case sensitive, to match the semantics of `contains` on GHA | ||
not_blocking = occursin("[noblock]", body(c)) || occursin("merge approved", lowercase(body(c))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not a fan of this special casing. I'd rather just tell users to always include [noblock]
in all of their comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed in JuliaRegistries/General#98815, we're going to compromise, and we'll require [merge approved]
, but not require [noblock]
.
Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]>
@ericphanson This needs a rebase, I think. |
(updated) |
Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After these are done, I think this should be good to go.
Co-authored-by: Dilum Aluthge <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
* Upgrade to Documenter v1 * Update make.jl * Update Project.toml --------- Co-authored-by: Eric Hanson <[email protected]>
Based on #536 to avoid conflicts. That one should be merged first.
Requires JuliaRegistries/General#98815
The flow here is:
FAQ:
[noblock]
? No, we special case it so comments that trigger author-approval count as noblock.merge approved
will apply to all of them