Hi all,

On 10.05.2025 22:32, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
> As expected, the introduction of required reviews and required checks
> has made our "automatically merge Dependabot PRs" workflow less
> automatic. Currently, for each Dependabot PR:
> 
>   * The commit that adds a changelog entry does not trigger the build
> workflow and therefore fails the required checks. Amending the commit
> manually (which would trigger the workflow) isn't possible through the
> GitHub UI.
>   * A review is required.
>   * We must merge the PR manually once all checks pass.


It’s been nearly six months since we started addressing these issues, so
here’s where things currently stand:

1. There’s a working prototype that allows merging grouped Dependabot
   PRs simply by approving them [1]. I haven’t addressed all the review
   comments yet, as deployment is currently blocked by other issues.
2. Changelog entries in grouped PRs won’t be generated correctly until
   either `dependabot/fetch-metadata#632` is merged or INFRA approves
   using my fork of the action (see [2] and [3]). Alternatively, we
   could move that action to an `apache` repository and maintain it
   collectively.
3. Personal access token (PAT): Having INFRA create a PAT for us [4] is
   no longer necessary. Each of us can add a repository secret
   individually, and I’m happy to handle that.

In the meantime, without waiting for the above to be resolved, I’d like
to take a small but useful step to reduce Dependabot churn:

- Enable a single grouped Dependabot PR per month for all dependencies.
- Disable the old `merge-dependabot-reusable.yaml` workflow. While it
  was a helpful improvement at the time, it’s now causing more trouble
  than benefit (e.g., preventing required checks from running on the
  last commit). Even without branch protection, it often failed on
  `logging-log4j2` due to flaky tests.

What do you think about proceeding this way?

Piotr

[1] https://github.com/apache/logging-parent/pull/419
[2] https://github.com/dependabot/fetch-metadata/pull/632
[3] https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-actions/pull/339
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-26820

Reply via email to