Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@dyc3
Copy link
Contributor

@dyc3 dyc3 commented Nov 19, 2025

Summary

Test Plan

Docs

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Nov 19, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 603d331

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@dyc3 dyc3 force-pushed the dyc3/gh-merge-queue branch from a6a8c5f to 603d331 Compare November 19, 2025 13:53
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 19, 2025

Walkthrough

This PR adds merge_group event triggers to 15 GitHub Actions workflow files, enabling them to execute when merge groups are created by GitHub's merge queue feature. Each workflow now listens for both its existing triggers (such as pull_request, workflow_dispatch, or push) and the new merge_group event, with no changes to job logic or conditional paths.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • siketyan
  • ematipico
  • arendjr

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description check ❓ Inconclusive The description contains only the repository's PR template with instructional placeholders and no actual content describing the changes. Please fill in the Summary section with motivation and problem statement, including why merge queue triggers are needed for these workflows.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly summarises the main change: adding merge_group event triggers to GitHub Actions workflows for the merge queue feature.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch dyc3/gh-merge-queue

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7d963f3 and 603d331.

📒 Files selected for processing (15)
  • .github/workflows/autofix.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_configuration.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_css.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_graphql.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_js.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_json.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_manifests.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_module_graph.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/benchmark_tailwind.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/lint_rule_docs.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/parser_conformance.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request_js.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request_markdown.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request_node.yml (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
  • GitHub Check: Test Node.js API
🔇 Additional comments (15)
.github/workflows/benchmark_js.yml (1)

3-5: Good – merge_group trigger added correctly.

The merge_group trigger is now wired up, and the existing context fallback (|| github.sha) at line 56 handles the different event structures between pull_request and merge_group events properly.

.github/workflows/benchmark_configuration.yml (1)

3-5: Looks good.

The merge_group trigger is added, and the checkout ref fallback at line 44 will work correctly for both event types.

.github/workflows/pull_request_markdown.yml (1)

2-4: Approved.

No event-context dependencies here, so the merge_group addition is straightforward and safe.

.github/workflows/autofix.yml (1)

3-4: Good to go.

The merge_group trigger is added safely – no event-context dependencies to worry about here.

.github/workflows/pull_request.yml (1)

3-4: Approved.

The merge_group trigger is wired correctly. Note that the concurrency group at line 20 will use github.sha for merge_group events (since pull_request.number won't exist), which is the correct fallback behaviour.

.github/workflows/pull_request_js.yml (1)

3-4: Good.

The merge_group trigger is added correctly. Concurrency group at line 17 will correctly fall back to github.sha for merge_group events.

.github/workflows/benchmark_tailwind.yml (1)

3-5: Looks good.

The merge_group trigger is added with proper context fallback at line 47. All set.

.github/workflows/benchmark_json.yml (1)

3-5: Approved.

The merge_group trigger is added correctly with proper context handling via the fallback at line 56.

.github/workflows/lint_rule_docs.yml (1)

2-19: Looks good. Adding merge_group alongside existing pull_request and push triggers is straightforward here—no event-specific conditionals to worry about.

.github/workflows/benchmark_graphql.yml (1)

3-30: Looks good. The checkout step at line 53 safely falls back to github.sha for merge_group events, which is the correct revision for that context.

.github/workflows/parser_conformance.yml (1)

3-4: Verify PR comment steps during merge_group events. The workflow adds merge_group trigger, but steps at lines 66, 78, 91, and 101 only run when github.event_name == 'pull_request'. For merge queue runs, these PR comment steps will silently skip. Is this intentional, or should merge_group events also post results?

Also applies to: 66-66, 78-78, 91-91, 101-101

.github/workflows/benchmark_module_graph.yml (1)

3-30: Looks good. Safe fallback syntax for the checkout step will handle merge_group events correctly.

.github/workflows/pull_request_node.yml (1)

3-26: Looks good. Concurrency at line 20 safely falls back to github.sha for merge_group events, which correctly groups by commit for merge queue runs.

.github/workflows/benchmark_css.yml (1)

3-32: Looks good. Safe fallback pattern for merge_group event handling.

.github/workflows/benchmark_manifests.yml (1)

3-22: Looks good. Safe fallback pattern consistent with other benchmark workflows.

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

  • Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
  • Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
  • Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

  1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
  2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
  3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
  4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
    | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
  5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
    Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.


Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@dyc3 dyc3 merged commit 575129a into main Nov 19, 2025
4 checks passed
@dyc3 dyc3 deleted the dyc3/gh-merge-queue branch November 19, 2025 14:07
l0ngvh pushed a commit to l0ngvh/biome that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants