How To Schedule Pull Requests On GitHub To Merge Them At Later Time !EXCLUSIVE!
DOWNLOAD ->->->-> https://bytlly.com/2sXGwg
The issue_comment event occurs for comments on both issues and pull requests. You can use the github.event.issue.pull_request property in a conditional to take different action depending on whether the triggering object was an issue or pull request.
Note that GITHUB_SHA for this event is the last merge commit of the pull request merge branch. If you want to get the commit ID for the last commit to the head branch of the pull request, use github.event.pull_request.head.sha instead.
This event runs in the context of the base of the pull request, rather than in the context of the merge commit, as the pull_request event does. This prevents execution of unsafe code from the head of the pull request that could alter your repository or steal any secrets you use in your workflow. This event allows your workflow to do things like label or comment on pull requests from forks. Avoid using this event if you need to build or run code from the pull request.
Reviews allow collaborators to comment on the changes proposed in pull requests, approve the changes, or request further changes before the pull request is merged. Repository administrators can require that all pull requests are approved before being merged.
Repository administrators or custom roles with the "edit repository rules" permission can require that all pull requests receive a specific number of approving reviews before someone merges the pull request into a protected branch. You can require approving reviews from people with write permissions in the repository or from a designated code owner. For more information, see "About protected branches."
We can choose if the workflow is triggered by an event like a push or pull request to a specific branch, or we can even schedule a cron to automatically trigger it every defined amount of time!.
The cool thing, and the whole point of our project, is that we have previously defined in our workflow to run the tests with the pull requests. So when Renovate submits one, we will automatically check if the updates proposed will break the project or not before merging them to the master branch.
Then we have the packageRules. After some months using it I realized that going through checking the pull requests (from time to time) and accepting them if the tests passed was a major waste of time.
Pull requests provide an effective way to review code changes before it is merged into the codebase. However, these changes can introduce issues that can be tricky to find without building and deploying your application to a specific environment. Pull request triggers enable you to set up a set of criteria that must be met before deploying your code. You can use pull request triggers with code hosted on Azure Repos or GitHub.
Axolo makes a temporary Slack channel for every GitHub pull request, it will invite reviewers and assignees to the channel, notify them of relevant events like code comments, comments, GitHub Actions, Deployments and finally it will archive the channel once you close or merge pull request.
I consider Dependabot one of the most valuable tools for (open source) maintainers and use it in almost all my projects. It automates an important but very mundane task that is often neglected until issues arise. But enabling Dependabot for many projects can create a lot of work as maintainers have to manually merge its pull requests.
I set up three different labels. The first indicates that the pull request is about a dependency upgrade, and the second two indicate whether the pull request should be merged. You only need the last label to set up this workflow, and you are free to customize this as much as you like. Most importantly, you can name it whatever you want as long as you use the same name throughout the later steps.
probot-auto-merge can be customized quite heavily, but the above is the minimal configuration that is required to automatically merge Dependabot's pull requests. It instructs probot-auto-merge to merge any pull request with the label PR-merge, and report the status of its runs as a check on the pull request. The latter is not required, but very helpful to understand and debug the configuration.
It took me two or three pull requests to get everything hooked up correctly, but Dependabot's comments on the pull request and probot-auto-merge's status check were very helpful to resolve any issues.
In this scenario, I deliberately created a merge conflict (it's harder than you might think!) with two separate feature branches. Both feature branches (I'm calling them section1 and section2) branched off from the same controller branch but got merged back to the controller branch via pull requests at different times. As you might expect, the pull request that got merged first had no issue. But when I tried to merge the second pull request, I got a merge conflict.
Now that you know how to resolve merge conflicts when sending pull requests to GitHub, it's only right that you also learn how to resolve merge conflicts that arise when you fetch remote changes from GitHub. This section will also cover how to deal with the more complicated merge conflicts that GitHub does not let you resolve, as we touched on in the first section. Let's get started:
Instead of handling multiple feature branches, a more straightforward method may be to implement feature flags. Employ a feature flag management solution that allows for trunk-based development. This is especially crucial when it comes to early-stage development, when features are often dropped or changed drastically based on feedback. It's worth it for your velocity and developer sanity to have a cleaner way to reduce merge conflicts. Sometimes, resolving merge conflicts can feel like writing the same code twice. Avoid unnecessary complications; create an environment where your developers (and you!) can be more productive. That's it! You are now fully equipped with all the knowledge you'll need to handle those pesky merge conflicts. If you think your colleagues will find this guide useful, do share it with them. They will thank you for it.
This was the crucial principle my seniors would stress every day when I started as a software developer. It was the same principle guiding them when they reviewed my pull requests, which would get rejected at least two or three times.
Continuous integration by itself encourages developers to commit code more often, it makes it easier to detect errors when they open a PR, and reduces the amount of code that needs to be debugged if something goes wrong. Frequent code updates also make it effortless to merge changes made in a pull request, so you and your team can spend more time writing code instead of resolving annoying branch conflicts.
In our case, we need write access to the pull requests so that we can modify the PR itself, and we need write access to the repository contents because we need to be able to request merging. Even though setting a PR to auto-merge may seem like we are just editing the PR, because it results in the code getting merged, we have to make sure we have permission to do that future merge too.
Would you want to configure "open-pull-requests-limit" in .github/dependabot.yml to be 1 (or 0 if you only care about security updates)? I'm assuming that if you've create the auto-merge workflow you describe and it opens multiple PRs at one time, all PRs after the first will not auto-merge because their branches will need to be manually updated with the changes from the first auto-merged PR, no?
After we have identified how to split the feature into several work items, we can then create dedicated branches for each of the work items and stack them on top of each other. Similarly, our pull requests will only highlight the changes that happened on each of the stacked branches.
In our example, once the reviewers reviewed all pull requests, we would merge the UI changes into the business logic changes. Then, we merge the business logic changes into the database changes. Finally, we merge the changes on the branch fb-database (which now comprises all changes) into the development branch.
If you're using Bamboo with Bitbucket Server, detecting pull requests from forks requires Bitbucket Server 7.20 or later and that you're connected to Bitbucket Server's primary mirror (secondary mirrors are not supported).
If you are new to Git, you can find a step-by-step guide tosetting up repositories and making commits inthis git-refresher material.If you are new to pull requests / merge requests, you can learn all about themin the Collaborative Git lesson.
Deleting a forked repository will delete any information associated with your repository. This can retroactively affect any references to your repository, including pull requests that have already been merged. (See Pull request displays "unknown repo" after deletion of fork)
To switch between branches in GitHub, we can use the dropdown list as illustrated in Fig. 9. If we select development, we should see the file we just added. Additionally, we can compare branches and create a pull request to merge development into master, but we will leave that for later.
So if you have a schedule in your workflow and you are not on the default branch, the workflow will not start. This is a security measure to prevent someone from creating a workflow that runs on a schedule and then creating a pull request to a repository that has a scheduled workflow. The scheduled workflow would then run on the pull request and the attacker could do something malicious. This is a good thing, but it can be confusing when you are just starting out. The solution is to make sure that you are on the default branch when you create your scheduled workflow, so that means that you need to merge in your changes for it to start based on your schedule.
Sometimes terraform apply fails. If the apply were to fail after the pull request was merged, you would need to create a new pull request to fix it. With locking + applying on the branch, you effectively mimic merging to main but with the added ability to re-plan/apply multiple times if things don't work. 2b1af7f3a8