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
Consolidate the PR-metadata policy checks into one job #15936
A sample PR ran 72 checks; the Dev_new_gui ruleset requires 10. The other 62 still consume
runners, still restart on every push (~6 per PR), and still produce red that has to be triaged even
when it cannot block a merge.
Several are single-purpose policy checks that each pay a full job's fixed cost — runner allocation, actions/checkout, action downloads — to run a few seconds of shell:
pr-template-check.yml
pr-issue-validation.yml
no-commit-trailers.yml
pr-queue-gate.yml
the *-required-context.yml shims
Scope
Collapse the PR-metadata policy checks into one job that evaluates every rule and reports a
single consolidated result — Danger-style, or a plain script; the tool matters less than the job
count. Each rule keeps its own pass/fail line in the output so a failure still names exactly what
broke.
Constraints:
Rules that are currently required keep reporting a required context, whatever the job
reorganisation. Do not silently drop a gate — if a required check is folded in, the ruleset is
updated in the same PR and the change is called out in the PR body.
Duplicate pair: #15936 and #15364 describe one defect. Found during the v0.10.0 full-coverage triage (#17863), by reading bodies — a title-similarity pass over all 44,253 pairs in that milestone returned a maximum of 0.357 and found this pair, and five others, not at all.
Both collapse the same CI-babysitting workflows into one job — pr-queue-gate plus the *-required-context shims. #15364 frames it as a consolidation review of the 8 babysitting workflows, #15936 as merging the PR-metadata policy checks. Overlapping target set, same remedy.
Evidence both resolve to: .github/workflows/ — pr-queue-gate.yml and the *-required-context.yml shims (now 7 babysitting workflows, not 8; auto-fix-formatting.yml is gone)
Neither issue is being closed, deliberately. A duplicate pair is not a closure argument — closure needs the acceptance criteria checked per issue, which is a separate pass. In at least one of the six pairs only one member's work is actually done, so closing on duplication alone would close a live defect.
On the relationship type: GitHub's native "duplicate" marker requires closing the issue, so it is unavailable here. This comment creates a bidirectional cross-reference instead, which is a native timeline link discoverable from both issues rather than prose in a third place. If a hierarchy is wanted, a sub-issue link can be added where one member genuinely subsumes the other.
Activity
mrveiss commentedon Oct 2, 2026
Duplicate pair: #15936 and #15364 describe one defect. Found during the v0.10.0 full-coverage triage (#17863), by reading bodies — a title-similarity pass over all 44,253 pairs in that milestone returned a maximum of 0.357 and found this pair, and five others, not at all.
Both collapse the same CI-babysitting workflows into one job —
pr-queue-gateplus the*-required-contextshims. #15364 frames it as a consolidation review of the 8 babysitting workflows, #15936 as merging the PR-metadata policy checks. Overlapping target set, same remedy.Evidence both resolve to:
.github/workflows/—pr-queue-gate.ymland the*-required-context.ymlshims (now 7 babysitting workflows, not 8;auto-fix-formatting.ymlis gone)Neither issue is being closed, deliberately. A duplicate pair is not a closure argument — closure needs the acceptance criteria checked per issue, which is a separate pass. In at least one of the six pairs only one member's work is actually done, so closing on duplication alone would close a live defect.
On the relationship type: GitHub's native "duplicate" marker requires closing the issue, so it is unavailable here. This comment creates a bidirectional cross-reference instead, which is a native timeline link discoverable from both issues rather than prose in a third place. If a hierarchy is wanted, a sub-issue link can be added where one member genuinely subsumes the other.