Repository navigation
pr-review skill: judge at TARGET, stacked bases, leave generated files to CI - #7501
Open
andrewnester wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
andrewnester wants to merge 3 commits into
andrewnester wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Answers two questions on #7466: the main-distance check only tells the author what moved on main so they rebase, it does not move the review to the merge point; and regenerating generated files locally duplicates the deterministic CI check, so drop it. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
andrewnester
requested review from
janniklasrose,
pietern and
shreyas-goenka
November 11, 2026 18:18
andrewnester
changed the title
pietern
reviewed
Nov 12, 2026
| main, and conventions it follows (changelog location, test matrix variables) | ||
| may have changed. Those are judged at merge time, not at `TARGET`, so name | ||
| the new location in the review body. | ||
| `git merge-tree --write-tree "$TARGET" origin/main`. If files the change |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will repeat comments for every PR in the stack if there is a conflict on a base PR.
Don't these conflicts show up as merge conflicts anyway?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Scoped both commands to the PR's base branch, so a parent conflict is reported once. Kept merge-tree: GitHub flags the conflict but not where the file went.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correction: the check stays, reworked in 00b7b95. It now runs against the PR's base branch, so a stacked PR reports a parent's conflict once on the parent, and the text says what GitHub's conflict flag does not: where the touched files went and which conventions changed.
With the check against origin/main, a conflict the parent PR has with main shows up again in every PR stacked on it. Run it against origin/<baseRefName> for a stacked PR instead, and say what the check is for: GitHub flags the conflict, the review names where the file went. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
This branch has not been deployed
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
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.
Changes
The main-distance check now says the review judges the code at
TARGETand only tells the author what moved on main. Stacked PRs takeBASEfrom their base branch so the parent PR is not reviewed twice. The sentence asking to regenerate generated files locally is replaced by a pointer to the CI check.Why
Follow-up to pietern's questions on #7466, plus #7496 (stacked on #7006) where the parent hunks showed up in the review.
Tests
Docs only.
This pull request and its description were written by Isaac.