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

Do nothing with closed PRs #38

Closed
foolip opened this issue Aug 15, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #86
Closed

Do nothing with closed PRs #38

foolip opened this issue Aug 15, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #86

Comments

@foolip
Copy link
Member

foolip commented Aug 15, 2018

On web-platform-tests/wpt#11122 @wpt-pr-bot changed the reviewers of a PR as I closed it. That generated email for me which wasn't very help. I suggest that when a PR is closed @wpt-pr-bot never does anything.

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Aug 15, 2019

@jugglinmike do you think this was accidentally fixed by #73?

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Oct 20, 2019

#69 is related.

I just saw on web-platform-tests/wpt#13606 that this hasn't been fixed, the bot added back labels and reviewers that I removed before making a comment, thus spamming everyone.

foolip added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019

Unverified

This commit is not signed, but one or more authors requires that any commit attributed to them is signed.
`pull_request.merged` implies `pull_request.state != "open"` but the
latter will also be true for closed but unmerged pull requests.

Fixes #38.
@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Oct 21, 2019

This bug just caused a whole lot of spam in web-platform-tests/wpt#13606 so I submitted #86.

@Ms2ger you asked there what I did but I won't reply there until this issue is fixed to avoid more spam. I just came along to try an understand the mishap, I didn't cause it. I can't pin down which force push it was, but probably one of the force pushes @woaiwyhty did on that PR either rebased a whole lot of history to new distinct commits, or contained a merge commit that had the same effect.

foolip added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019
This is not plain refactoring, as the `state == "closed"` condition
replaces the check on `merged`. It also ensures that we perform the
same checks both on the event payload and on the response from
https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#get-a-single-pull-request.

Fixes #38.
Fixes #69.
foolip added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019

Unverified

This commit is not signed, but one or more authors requires that any commit attributed to them is signed.
This is not plain refactoring, as the `state == "closed"` condition
replaces the check on `merged`. It also ensures that we perform the
same checks both on the event payload and on the response from
https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#get-a-single-pull-request.

Fixes #38.
Fixes #69.
foolip added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2019
This is not plain refactoring, as the `state == "closed"` condition
replaces the check on `merged`. It also ensures that we perform the
same checks both on the event payload and on the response from
https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#get-a-single-pull-request.

Fixes #38.
Fixes #69.
jugglinmike pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 23, 2019
This is not plain refactoring, as the `state == "closed"` condition
replaces the check on `merged`. It also ensures that we perform the
same checks both on the event payload and on the response from
https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#get-a-single-pull-request.

Fixes #38.
Fixes #69.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
1 participant