Recognize all GitHub issue-link forms in require-issue-link workflow - #4359
Merged
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The
require-issue-linkworkflow only recognized theCloses #123hash form when scanning a PR body for its linked issue. GitHub itself also honorsCloses owner/repo#123and the fullCloses https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123URL — both of which contributors use. A PR linking its issue via either of those forms was wrongly closed as "no link", and assigning the issue afterward never reopened it (thereopen-on-assignmentjob re-parsed the body with the same regex and skipped the PR). This is exactly what happened to #4319 → #4320.The shared closing-keyword regex (used identically by both jobs) now matches all three forms GitHub recognizes, scoped to the current repo so a cross-repo reference like
Closes otherorg/repo#5is correctly ignored rather than mis-resolved against our own issue numbering.