Skip to content
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

add requirement and detection that breaking changes are explained in release notes #586

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Dec 17, 2024

Conversation

IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

Helps get explanations of breaking changes into General PRs and ultimately TagBot-created releases.

@IanButterworth IanButterworth force-pushed the ib/breaking_change_explanation branch from 0632250 to 6f3de32 Compare December 16, 2024 14:49
Copy link
Member

@DilumAluthge DilumAluthge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add a kwarg to the public interface (AutoMerge.run()) that allows users to opt-out of this guideline. I can imagine a situation where people are using AutoMerge internally for their private registry, and maybe they have a different internal system for NEWS, release notes, etc., and thus they don't want their internal AutoMerge to enforce a particular style.

@ericphanson
Copy link
Member

ericphanson commented Dec 16, 2024

This may have coverage already, I've kicked off the integration tests (via workflow dispatch), we can see if they fail. If so we will need to figure out how to adjust them to get the release notes in there somehow.

The way integration tests work here is they run when the PR is in the merge queue, or by workflow dispatch by a maintainer. They take ~1 hour, and run on a live registry on github.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Currently this only fails if the BREAKING label is applied. Is that sufficient?

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

@ericphanson sorry I think it needs re-invoking as there was a bug before.

@ericphanson
Copy link
Member

Currently this only fails if the BREAKING label is applied. Is that sufficient?

I think this should be OK as registrator adds the label, so it should be before RegistryCI queries github for the PR. I guess if Registrator is quite slow and RegistryCI is fast though, there is nothing guaranteeing that ordering. We might be safer if we query for the labels inside the guideline itself instead of relying on pr.labels which may be stale. However I think it's OK either way.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Makes sense. Updated.

@ericphanson
Copy link
Member

This looks good to me, the only thing left is @DilumAluthge's request here and getting CI working

IanButterworth and others added 5 commits December 16, 2024 16:45
ericphanson
ericphanson previously approved these changes Dec 16, 2024
Copy link
Member

@ericphanson ericphanson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!
Can you bump the patch version? Then feel free to add to the merge queue and register.

On General's side, once its registered, to make use of it we will need to run the update-manifests workflow (https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/blob/master/.github/workflows/update_manifests.yml) then add the kwarg.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Looks great, thanks for the help @ericphanson !

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Good to go from my perspective.

@ericphanson ericphanson added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 16, 2024
Merged via the queue into master with commit 7eda9e9 Dec 17, 2024
11 checks passed
@ericphanson ericphanson deleted the ib/breaking_change_explanation branch December 17, 2024 00:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants