Skip to content

Don't block merges on linkcheck - #2128

Open
woodruffw wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
ww/no-linkcheck-on-merge-groupo
Open

Don't block merges on linkcheck#2128
woodruffw wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
ww/no-linkcheck-on-merge-groupo

Conversation

@woodruffw

@woodruffw woodruffw commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I believe this was an oversight in #2035 -- it doesn't make sense to allow linkchecks to pass PR gates, only to bounce them at the merge group.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-packaging-user-guide--2128.org.readthedocs.build/en/2128/

Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@yossarian.net>
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@yossarian.net>
@woodruffw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I had to widen this to non-main pushes as well, since first-party PRs will also trigger this since they receive the push event.

@woodruffw
woodruffw requested a review from webknjaz September 8, 2026 19:20
Comment thread .github/workflows/test.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/test.yml Outdated
@webknjaz

webknjaz commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

since first-party PRs will also trigger this since they receive the push event.

Not sure we really need to care about pushes, though. What fails is merge queue events.

@woodruffw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

since first-party PRs will also trigger this since they receive the push event.

Not sure we really need to care about pushes, though. What fails is merge queue events.

FWICT the merge queue only becomes available after the push-triggered checks succeed, since the linkcheck is marked as required on that trigger still.

@webknjaz

webknjaz commented Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@woodruffw no, all GH platform events are independent, they all are happening in isolated contexts and don't know of each other. But if a PR is created from within upstream, sure, both events will happen upstream and cause runs in the same repo. This means they'll create Checks API statuses that will show up in the PR. But this only highlights a repo configuration problem — we should never create topic branches upstream in the first place 🤷‍♂️. If I had enough privileges in the repo, I'd set up branch rulesets to reflect this but I don't.. Maybe one day I'll finally get to catch @pradyunsg and we'll set this up.

I don't think we should be permissive with pushes.

Meanwhile, #2129 will fix the broken links, unblocking other merges.

@woodruffw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

no, all GH platform events are independent, they all are happening in isolated contexts and don't know of each other.

Yeah, I'm not saying they're dependent. I'm saying that the "required" state is set for Test / check, and on push that was causing a failure despite essentially being a duplicate run of pull_request.

we should never create topic branches upstream in the first place

Sorry, I don't follow -- you're saying we should only ever do PRs from forks for this repo?

(As before, I'm generally agnostic on how things get accomplished. But the linkcheck continues to be a significant drag on this repo's velocity.)

woodruffw and others added 3 commits September 9, 2026 12:12
Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <webknjaz@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: 🇺🇦 Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко) <webknjaz@redhat.com>
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants