You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Decide: How should the stacked-PR trap be fixed, where both caller stubs (test-pull-request.yml, test-pull-request-smoke.yml, mirrored in docs/reusable-workflows.md and the hub's own workflow) filter `p? #3744
Split from #1516 by decision triage. Only this undecided item waits on the maintainer. The rest of #1516 stays there as ordinary work.
Decision needed (decision triage, 2026-11-01)
Question: How should the stacked-PR trap be fixed, where both caller stubs (test-pull-request.yml, test-pull-request-smoke.yml, mirrored in docs/reusable-workflows.md and the hub's own workflow) filter pull_request: branches: [main, develop] so a PR retargeted onto develop gets no run: drop the filter, add types: [opened, synchronize, reopened, edited], or document the no-op-push remedy?
Options, recommended first:
Drop the base-branch filter in both stubs and the hub (recommended): Every PR gets its run when opened, and the check sits on the head SHA, which a retarget does not change, so it carries across (verified live on aiopurpleair). The staleness allowed is the same gap the non-strict status-check policy already accepts. Costs runner minutes on rare PRs into feature branches. Stubs, docs example, and tests/test_release_guards.py change together, and PhotoCleaner's filtered copy follows. No work in flight.
Keep the filter, add the edited type: Every title or body edit, routine for agent-driven PRs, triggers a full rerun, and job-level skipping is unsafe since a condition-skipped aggregator reports success. No work in flight.
Keep the filter, document the no-op-push remedy: Cheapest and fails closed (the PR waits at "Expected"), but someone must recognize the stall. No work in flight.
Evidence: Both stubs carry branches: [main, develop] and no types:, as does the hub's own workflow. No rule text mentions stacked or retargeted PRs. The 2026-09-10 comment lays out trade-offs without a choice. The prose-gate-on-push sub-question is #3334's problem and should follow its decision. Items 1 and 2 (mypy files key, mypy-or-pyright exclusivity) stay ordinary documentation work.
Maintainer answer (decision triage, 2026-11-01): Option 1: drop the pull_request base-branch filter in both catalog stubs, the docs/reusable-workflows.md example, and the hub's own test-pull-request.yml, updating tests/test_release_guards.py with them. The prose-gate-on-push sub-question follows #3334's answer.
The answer is carried to #1516, where the work lives. Closing this decision issue, since it held only the question.
Activity
ptr727 commentedon Nov 1, 2026
Maintainer answer (decision triage, 2026-11-01): Option 1: drop the pull_request base-branch filter in both catalog stubs, the docs/reusable-workflows.md example, and the hub's own test-pull-request.yml, updating tests/test_release_guards.py with them. The prose-gate-on-push sub-question follows #3334's answer.
The answer is carried to #1516, where the work lives. Closing this decision issue, since it held only the question.