bito-code-review[bot] commented on code in PR #44538:
URL: https://github.com/apache/superset/pull/44538#discussion_r4079567592
##########
.asf.yaml:
##########
@@ -103,3 +103,92 @@ github:
required_approving_review_count: 1
required_signatures: false
+
+ # GitHub's merge queue rule type only exists on rulesets, not on the classic
+ # `protected_branches` API above -- the two mechanisms coexist (GitHub
+ # evaluates both), so this adds a merge queue on `master` without touching
+ # the existing classic config, which still gates PR-entry-into-queue
+ # readiness (review count, code-owner approval, etc).
+ #
+ # Raw payload syntax, not the newer `merge_queue` convenience key: that key
+ # is still pending in apache/infrastructure-asfyaml#119 as of this writing
+ # and isn't deployed yet, so using it here would fail INFRA-bot validation.
+ # Switch this entry to the convenience syntax once that PR merges.
+ #
+ # `required_status_checks` below intentionally omits two checks that are
+ # required in the classic config above: `lint-check` (validates the PR's
+ # own title -- meaningless once re-run against the queue's synthetic
+ # merge-group ref) and `dependency-review` (actions/dependency-review-action
+ # has a confirmed, unfixed bug against merge_group events as of this
+ # writing -- see actions/dependency-review-action#843 -- it destructures
+ # `github.event.pull_request`, which merge_group doesn't have, and crashes).
+ # Both still gate a PR before a committer can add it to the queue via the
+ # classic `required_status_checks` above; they just don't re-run once it's
+ # in the queue.
+ rulesets:
+ - name: "Merge Queue"
+ target: branch
+ enforcement: active
+ conditions:
+ ref_name:
+ include:
+ - "~DEFAULT_BRANCH"
+ exclude: []
+ rules:
+ - type: required_status_checks
+ parameters:
+ strict_required_status_checks_policy: false
+ required_status_checks:
+ - context: enforce-single-migration-head
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: pre-commit (current)
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: frontend-build
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: cypress-matrix-required
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: playwright-tests-required
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: test-mysql
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: test-postgres-required
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: test-postgres-hive
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: test-postgres-presto
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: test-sqlite
+ integration_id: -1
+ - context: unit-tests-required
+ integration_id: -1
Review Comment:
<div>
<div id="suggestion">
<div id="issue"><b>duplicated check-context list</b></div>
<div id="fix">
The 11 `required_status_checks` contexts here duplicate
`protected_branches.master.required_status_checks.contexts` (lines 79-91). The
two omissions are documented, but the shared list is not — a future check added
to the classic gate but not this ruleset would let the merge queue merge
without it. Consider a sync-required comment or a shared reference.
</div>
</div>
<small><i>Code Review Run #632180</i></small>
</div>
---
Should Bito avoid suggestions like this for future reviews? (<a
href=https://alpha.bito.ai/home/ai-agents/review-rules>Manage Rules</a>)
- [ ] Yes, avoid them
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
