Renaming from `tests` to make it explicit that we're maintaining the
driver and not all tests.
As briefly discussed with Jacek & Kierán.
We rely on pinging each other / being pinged and that seems better.
`bot.js` already pulls reviews via GraphQL for the approval-count
labels. Move that fetch above the `handleMerge` call, add `commit
{ oid }` to the query, and pass the result through. `handleMerge` no
longer issues its own `listReviews` REST call.
While here, the `approvals` set is now derived from the same reviews
data. Two upsides:
- A reviewer who approved and was later dismissed no longer counts
towards the approval check; their review now surfaces with state
DISMISSED instead of leaving a stale `reviewed` event behind.
- `events` is no longer needed by `runChecklist` (it was only feeding
the approvals filter); the parameter is dropped from both call
sites. `handleMerge` still uses `events` for tracking the latest
push and merge-command comments.
Also drop the redundant `user` truthy checks (and the stale "some
users have been deleted" comment) in `runChecklist`. The GraphQL
query uses `author { ... on User { login id } }` and bot.js then
filters via `r.user?.login`, so by the time reviews reach
`runChecklist` every entry already has a populated `user`. Verified
by querying real PRs: bots surface as `{__typename: "Bot"}` (no
`login`/`id`, filtered out by bot.js), and deleted accounts surface
as the "ghost" user (login `"ghost"`, id `10137`), which passes the
filter but matches no committer - harmless for both checks.
Assisted-by: claude-code with claude-opus-4-8[1m]-high
The previous tip ("Sometimes GitHub gets stuck after enabling Auto
Merge") didn't explain why nothing happens immediately after the bot's
"Enabled Auto Merge" reply, leaving maintainers unsure whether to wait
or intervene. Spell out that Auto Merge waits for required CI before
queueing, that a later CI failure leaves the PR un-queued until it is
fixed, and link to GitHub's documentation; keep the existing "leave
another approval" workaround for the rare cases where Auto Merge stalls
after CI completes.
Assisted-by: claude-code with claude-opus-4-8[1m]-high
A "changes requested" review from a committer blocks both the merge
queue and auto-merge, but unlike approvals it isn't auto-dismissed
when new commits are pushed. Surface it as a checklist item so the
bot's reply explains the block instead of silently enabling
auto-merge that will never trigger.
Implementation pulls every review for the PR via `listReviews` and,
for each committer, takes the latest review whose state is
`APPROVED`/`CHANGES_REQUESTED`. The check fails if any committer's
latest stance is `CHANGES_REQUESTED`. Other review states fall out
naturally:
- A dismissed review surfaces as `DISMISSED`, so a committer
dismissing their own changes-requested review unblocks the PR.
- A comment-only follow-up surfaces as `COMMENTED`, so it doesn't
override an earlier actionable review - the prior stance still
stands until the committer explicitly approves or requests changes
again.
Assisted-by: claude-code with claude-opus-4-8[1m]-high
The merge bot falls back to GitHub Auto Merge whenever the merge queue
won't accept a PR yet. That is the right move while CI is still
running, but pointless once CI has already failed: Auto Merge can never
trigger, and fixing CI requires a new push, which invalidates the merge
command anyway (the bot only acts on comments after the latest push).
Fetch the `no PR failures` commit status and, when the merge-queue
enqueue fails, branch on it. If CI has already failed
(`error`/`failure`), skip Auto Merge and reply that a fresh
`@NixOS/nixpkgs-merge-bot merge` comment is needed once CI is green
again. Otherwise (pending or missing status) enable Auto Merge as
before.
`merge()` now returns `{ reaction, messages }` so the CI-failure path
can leave a thumbs-down reaction rather than the rocket used for an
actual merge.
Closes#512554.
Assisted-by: claude-code with claude-opus-4-8[1m]-high
The performance comparison summary previously stated it compared against
"its pull request base branch (e.g., 'master')" regardless of the actual
base branch.
Plumb the base branch classification computed in prepare.js through the
eval workflow to the `compare` derivation so the summary names the real
base branch (e.g. "staging-25.11"). The local `eval.full` helper defaults
to "master", matching its touched-files convention.
Assisted-by: claude-code with claude-opus-4-8[1m]-high
