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

Pending PR status for "docs: ..." titles #20

Closed
levithomason opened this issue Jul 25, 2018 · 8 comments
Closed

Pending PR status for "docs: ..." titles #20

levithomason opened this issue Jul 25, 2018 · 8 comments

Comments

@levithomason
Copy link
Contributor

I noticed the PR status is pending for some of our PRs which have titles with this format:

docs: improve example knobs

image

You can see the PR here: microsoft/fluent-ui-react#9

@levithomason
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note, I just pushed another commit and it seems to have re-triggered the check and passed. The issue appears to be intermittent.

@zeke
Copy link
Owner

zeke commented Jul 25, 2018

Thanks for reporting, @levithomason.

A fix for semantic message detection was shipped nine days ago: #16 -- was the previous incorrect status reported before that timeframe?

@levithomason
Copy link
Contributor Author

@zeke here's another example of a PR check that is stagnant at the time of writing. Note the number of title changes trying to correct the check:

microsoft/fluent-ui-react#336

image

@zeke
Copy link
Owner

zeke commented Oct 15, 2018

Ah I see. Unfortunately you can't actually denote a breaking change using the PR title, as the BREAKING CHANGE string needs to be in the Body™ of one of the commits, not in the first line of the commit (aka the Subject™). This is how the Conventional Commits spec is defined.

I'm open to ideas on how to make this easier, whether that means changes to this bot or proposing a change to the Conventional Commits spec to which this bot adheres.

@zeke
Copy link
Owner

zeke commented Jun 20, 2019

Related: #51

@tunnckoCore
Copy link

tunnckoCore commented Jun 20, 2019

I don't see how #51 is related to that. The linked #336 simply just doesn't follow the spec.

@zeke
Copy link
Owner

zeke commented Jun 20, 2019

#51 is related because it's about the process for signaling a breaking change.

@zeke
Copy link
Owner

zeke commented Jul 10, 2020

I think this was a blip in the service. Feel free to re-open if this happens again.

@zeke zeke closed this as completed Jul 10, 2020
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants