You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As per the example configs, we setup a mergify config that should merge whenever Github branch protections are satisfied.
We also setup smart+fasttrack strict mode in order to avoid breakages in master.
This seemed to work well, but it ordered the PRs such that the ones waiting on approval were ahead of the the ones which were ready (except needing to be updated) and thus the queue never moved (until I approved the waiting PRs).
Feature Request: Send PRs to the back of the queue if they are waiting on Branch Protections (there may be other similar interactions).
Current workarounds:
Don't use smart and waste some cylces. This is not too uncommon for bots in Github universe but seems unnecessary.
Add an approvals condition to mergify since that's unlikely to change and is the only condition that requires human involvement.
Do devs have an opinion on what course of action is canonical?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the report! One of the issues that pop up often is #448. Unfortunately, the GitHub API does not offer a documented and reliable way to know when the branch protections are satisfied.
We'll try to implement a workaround in the future, we'll see how that goes. I know @sileht has a few ideas. :)
As per the example configs, we setup a mergify config that should merge whenever Github branch protections are satisfied.
We also setup
smart+fasttrack
strict mode in order to avoid breakages in master.This seemed to work well, but it ordered the PRs such that the ones waiting on approval were ahead of the the ones which were ready (except needing to be updated) and thus the queue never moved (until I approved the waiting PRs).
Feature Request: Send PRs to the back of the queue if they are waiting on Branch Protections (there may be other similar interactions).
Current workarounds:
Do devs have an opinion on what course of action is canonical?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: