Closed derberg closed 5 months ago
@derberg Can I work upon this?
sure, go ahead
cc - @derberg
/update
/update
but it fails because of merge conflict@derberg, can you please tell me the secrets stored in the repo so that I can introduce them into the code?
Also, the updation of forks requires a maintainer level of access, if I am not wrong. 😓
sorry, was out on holidays
yeah, I cannot give you secrets, this is why these are secrets 😛
Also, the updation of forks requires a maintainer level of access, if I am not wrong
yes, and our bots are maintainers in all repos, so that will work
you probably need to setup alternative test account to test it. I do it on my own too, have 2 GH accounts, one that you see here and the other purely for testing
Got it 😄
/help
Hello, @derberg! 👋🏼
I'm 🧞🧞🧞 Genie 🧞🧞🧞 from the magic lamp. Looks like somebody needs a hand!
At the moment the following comments are supported in issues:
/good-first-issue {js | ts | java | go | docs | design | ci-cd}
or /gfi {js | ts | java | go | docs | design | ci-cd}
- label an issue as a good first issue
.
example: /gfi js
or /good-first-issue ci-cd
Reason/Context
The autoupdate workflow doesn't work with forks.
It can update only branches that are in the upstream.
Description
When the branch from the fork is out of sync with master, in the UI maintainers see a button that they can click to update the branch with master.
We should allow anyone to be able to trigger such an update.
If there is a button, there needs to be API behind it, REST or GraphQL. There needs to be a research on how to trigger such branch update in form with an API. Then we need to update autoupdate workflow