ci(publishing): enforce conventional commit linting on the PR name#1413
Merged
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 4 commits intoJan 8, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Can you provide examples? Also, some form of documentation should be added to the README. |
Contributor
The lint used links to this conventional commit format: |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1413 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.16% 71.22% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 403 411 +8
Lines 64368 65788 +1420
==========================================
+ Hits 45810 46859 +1049
- Misses 18558 18929 +371
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
BenchmarksComparisonBenchmark execution time: 2026-01-08 11:30:21 Comparing candidate commit a48b9a6 in PR branch Found 1 performance improvements and 14 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 42 metrics, 2 unstable metrics. scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798
scenario:sql/obfuscate_sql_string
CandidateCandidate benchmark detailsGroup 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group 8
Group 9
Group 10
Group 11
Group 12
Group 13
Group 14
Group 15
Group 16
Group 17
Group 18
Group 19
BaselineOmitted due to size. |
Contributor
Artifact Size Benchmark Reportaarch64-alpine-linux-musl
aarch64-apple-darwin
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
libdatadog-x64-windows
libdatadog-x86-windows
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
x86_64-apple-darwin
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
paullegranddc
approved these changes
Dec 19, 2025
d603f64 to
41a60e3
Compare
danielsn
reviewed
Jan 5, 2026
|
|
||
| ### Common Types | ||
|
|
||
| - **feat**: A new feature for the user |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question: given that this is library code, where do you draw the line between "refactor" and "feat", for changes that affect APIs?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My two cents: If capabilities or functionality aren't changing then it's a refactor, even if it's a breaking change for a public API because something like a function name has changed. If you add a new parameter to a function it's likely a feat.
@hoolioh Whatever we agree on should probably be documented to minimize confusion.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sometimes the line can be a little bit blurry but I agree with @ekump pointed out. I the changes don't add any new functionality to the end user I would consider it a refactor even though there is breaking changes, in which case it will add a !, otherwise it's a feat.
Contributor
|
Is it compatible with jira tags (e.g. APMSP-1234 ) ? Also descriptions mentions commit message being checked but the ci seems to only check for PR name, is it enforced only for squash commit message ? |
Contributor
|
@VianneyRuhlmann You should be able to add the JIRA tag at the end according to https://github.com/conventional-changelog/commitlint/tree/master/@commitlint/config-conventional#subject-case |
Contributor
Author
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
The expected merge time in
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
As part of the versioning/publishing work We're at aiming at autogenerating the changelog based on PR descriptions. Therefore having a standarized format to craft the descriptions will help in that regard. In that regard this PR enforce the following restrictions:
Format
Commit messages and PR titles should follow this structure:
Common Types
Scope (Optional)
The scope provides additional context about which part of the codebase is affected:
Breaking Changes
Breaking changes should be indicated by a
!after the type/scope:Examples
Good commit messages:
feat: add support for custom metadata tagsfix(profiling): resolve deadlock in thread samplingdocs: add examples for exception trackingchore: update dependencies to latest versionstest(crashtracker): add integration tests for signal handlingPoor commit messages:
update code(not descriptive, missing type)Fixed bug(missing type format, not descriptive)WIP(not meaningful)