Repository navigation
feat: save the diagram to an analysis branch of its own #142
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
base: feat/ancestor-base-seed
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "CodeBoarding analysis branch", | ||
| "target": "branch", | ||
| "enforcement": "active", | ||
| "conditions": { | ||
| "ref_name": { | ||
| "include": ["refs/heads/codeboarding/analysis"], | ||
| "exclude": [] | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "rules": [ | ||
| { "type": "creation" }, | ||
| { "type": "update", "parameters": { "update_allows_fetch_and_merge": false } }, | ||
| { "type": "deletion" }, | ||
| { "type": "non_fast_forward" } | ||
|
Comment on lines
+11
to
+15
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In repositories where contributors may push branches but the main branch requires reviewed PRs, this ruleset still lets any contributor create or fast-forward Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Fixed in 7a65300 (now |
||
| ], | ||
| "bypass_actors": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "actor_id": 15368, | ||
| "actor_type": "Integration", | ||
| "bypass_mode": "always" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
target_branch, is this the target in tehms of where the sync will happen or in terms of which branch we will sync with, unsure that wording is clear again.
i think that most of these things will be read by ppl or even more by their agents so proly descriptive and somewhat clear names are worth investing in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch, it was ambiguous, and under
branchthe old description ("Branch updated by sync mode") was just wrong. I kept the name since it's an existing v1 input and renaming would break every current workflow, but the description now says it's the code branch sync analyzes: withpush/pull_requestthe analysis is also committed to it, withbranchit's only read. Same wording in the README table and the new section.