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

🎨 Create dependabot automerge action #187

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 2, 2023
Merged

Conversation

flaxel
Copy link
Contributor

@flaxel flaxel commented Nov 1, 2023

Type of Change

  • Bugfix
  • Enhancement / new feature
  • Refactoring
  • Documentation

Description

  • create dependabot auto-merge action
  • tested in own testing environment (see comment)
  • ⚠️ using real version in autodev action project

Checklist

  • Add relevant labels (for example type of change or patch/minor/major)
  • Make sure not to introduce some mistakes
  • Update documentation
  • Review the Contributing Guideline and sign CLA
  • Reference relevant issue(s) and close them after merging

@flaxel flaxel added enhancement New feature or request minor Pull requests with new features labels Nov 1, 2023
@flaxel flaxel requested a review from agierlicki November 1, 2023 12:15
@flaxel flaxel requested a review from a team as a code owner November 1, 2023 12:15
@flaxel flaxel requested a review from a team November 1, 2023 12:27
@flaxel
Copy link
Contributor Author

flaxel commented Nov 1, 2023

I tested the workflow in my own testing environment:

Bildschirmfoto 2023-11-01 um 13 55 03

@flaxel flaxel requested a review from timdittler November 1, 2023 12:55
@0x46616c6b
Copy link
Contributor

0x46616c6b commented Nov 1, 2023

I tested the workflow in my own testing environment:

Bildschirmfoto 2023-11-01 um 13 55 03

But your checks in the repository are not required. I had the experience when you have required checks that it can fail.

Edit: And you don't have CODEOWNERS reviews enabled, right?

@flaxel
Copy link
Contributor Author

flaxel commented Nov 1, 2023

I had a required step and it works perfectly. 🙌 The codeowner issue can be solved in each repository explicitly with an adaption of the CODEOWNERS file. But I would keep this configuration in the specific repository. 🎉 And if we find that we need to adjust something, then I would improve the action step by step.

Copy link
Contributor

@timdittler timdittler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that we can iterate on it if it is in a basic working state, which it seems to be. I would like see a bit of additional docs (e.g. CODEOWNERS). Maybe add a verbal hint, that this workflow will be called by the on: pull_request workflow, thereby on dependabot PRs.

@flaxel flaxel force-pushed the create-depdendabot-automerge branch from dd97719 to 167f0b7 Compare November 2, 2023 15:22
@flaxel flaxel merged commit dafecc4 into main Nov 2, 2023
2 checks passed
@flaxel flaxel deleted the create-depdendabot-automerge branch November 2, 2023 15:32
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 2, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request minor Pull requests with new features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants