Add issue-based merge queue pause#901
Conversation
👷 Deploy request for kodiak-docs pending review.Visit the deploys page to approve it
|
👷 Deploy request for kodiak-dashboard-staging pending review.Visit the deploys page to approve it
|
|
Hey @qefir, Thank you for the pull request! Can you explain more about your use case? My understanding is you want to disable merging pull requests whenever an issue has a certain label. Is that correct? I'm just curious about your workflow and how you use this day-to-day |
|
Hey @chdsbd! It’s mainly for incident situations when we don’t want anything merged into master. Being able to automatically block merges based on a label helps ensure nothing goes out while we’re handling the issue. Prow/Tide offers a similar feature, and I’ve found it very handy in practice |
|
@qefir I'm looking to merge your PRs but it'll take me some time to review them and test them out. |
No worries, take your time. I'm already happy you're helping at all!😄 |
|
Hey @chdsbd! I tested your changes (add graphql variable) and noticed they don’t work as expected - GitHub rejects empty filters
Since this filter isn’t used anymore, maybe it’s best to remove it entirely. We currently just check for blocking labels in the last 100 issues |
| squashMergeAllowed | ||
| deleteBranchOnMerge | ||
| isPrivate | ||
| issues(first: 100, states: [OPEN], orderBy: {field: UPDATED_AT, direction: DESC}) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding this field increases the GraphQL rate limit consumption from 4 per request to 5.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, that’s not good. In that case, maybe it’s better to use a separate label taken from the env instead of kodiak.toml, and only filter issues with that label. That should be more lightweight and avoid the extra GraphQL rate-limit hit, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's a good solution. Do you plan to self-host this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we’re planning to self-host it. For our needs, getting the label from the env is sufficient, though it might not be the ideal approach for Kodiak in general
3 participants
No description provided.