fix(ci): give stacked pull requests a real check signal - #555
Merged
Conversation
Every workflow gated its pull_request trigger on a main base, so a pull request stacked on another branch ran nothing but the title lint. A change could reach review, and very nearly a merge, with no test, lint, or CodeQL result behind its green checkmark. Signed-off-by: Yordis Prieto <yordis.prieto@gmail.com>
PR SummaryLow Risk Overview The change removes that base-branch gate from CI ADR, CI Docs, CI Go, CI Proto, CI Rust, CI Semconv, CI Web, and CodeQL, while keeping Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2c57a30. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here. |
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Team Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (8)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (8)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. WalkthroughThe pull request triggers in eight GitHub Actions workflows no longer restrict runs to the ChangesPull request workflow trigger scope
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This change enables CI checks for stacked pull requests by removing the main-base restriction from the affected workflows. No actionable merge-blocking risk remains based on the supplied evidence. Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
|
Code Coverage SummaryDetailsDiff against mainResults for commit: 2c57a30 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
pull_requesttrigger on amainbase, so a pull request stacked on another branch ran nothing but the title lint.Known gap left open: GitHub fires
editedwhen a pull request's base branch changes, and that activity type is absent from most of these triggers. So when a parent merges and GitHub auto-retargets the child, the child's existing results stay as they are rather than re-running against the new base. Addingeditedwould close it, at the cost of a full re-run every time a title or description is edited, including edits made by review bots.