Skip to content

fix(workflows): give both lint workflows the same check name - #57

Merged
davidmoralesz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/lint-check-name
Oct 9, 2026
Merged

davidmoralesz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/lint-check-name

Conversation

@davidmoralesz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Why

rulesets/checks-project.json requires a check called lint / pre-commit. That name comes from the job inside ci-pre-commit.yml. ci-lint.yml names its job lefthook, so a repository that switches reports lint / lefthook and its pull request waits forever on the old name. studiobimo/project-template PR 8 is stuck on exactly this.

What

  • Both workflows name the job hooks, so the check is lint / hooks whichever one a repository calls.
  • checks-project.json and checks-dotgithub.json require lint / hooks.

After merging: apply the rulesets

The release moves v1, and from then every repository reports lint / hooks while its live ruleset still asks for the old name. Until the rulesets are applied, every pull request in the org waits on a check that will not come. Run this straight after the release:

bash .devtools/repo-settings.sh

This PR itself has the same problem in reverse: it reports lint / hooks while this repo's live ruleset requires lint / lefthook, so it needs an admin bypass to merge.

Tested

  • The repo's lefthook jobs pass locally.
  • Not tested: the rulesets against GitHub. repo-settings.sh --check will show the two context changes.

ci-pre-commit reported `lint / pre-commit` and ci-lint reports `lint / lefthook`,
and checks-project requires the first. A repository moving to ci-lint therefore left
its pull request waiting on a check that would never report.

Both jobs are now named `hooks`, and both rulesets require `lint / hooks`.
@davidmoralesz
davidmoralesz merged commit 1fde6da into main Oct 9, 2026
6 checks passed
@davidmoralesz
davidmoralesz deleted the fix/lint-check-name branch October 9, 2026 18:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant