Skip to content

SDK V4 - Add dry-run status fields to PR template#4350

Open
AlexDaines wants to merge 1 commit intodevelopmentfrom
adaines/dry-run-pr-template
Open

SDK V4 - Add dry-run status fields to PR template#4350
AlexDaines wants to merge 1 commit intodevelopmentfrom
adaines/dry-run-pr-template

Conversation

@AlexDaines
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Add structured dry-run status fields to the PR template's Testing section. This adds a ### Dry-run subsection with fields for dry-run ID, status checkboxes (Pending / Completed successfully / Failed), and a failed bypass reason.

Motivation and Context

Dry-run status was not visible in the PR template, making it easy for reviewers to miss failing dry-runs before merging. Adding explicit fields ensures dry-run results are documented and reviewed as part of every PR.

Testing

N/A — template-only change. Verified the markdown renders correctly with GitHub checkbox syntax.

Dry-run

  • Dry-run ID: N/A
  • Status:
    • Pending
    • Completed successfully
    • Failed
  • Failed bypass reason:

Breaking Changes Assessment

No breaking changes — this is a PR template modification only.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Add a Dry-run subsection under Testing with structured fields for
dry-run ID, status checkboxes, and failed bypass reason. This makes
dry-run status an explicit part of every PR, preventing merges with
unnoticed failing dry-runs.
- [ ] Pending
- [ ] Completed successfully
- [ ] Failed
- **Failed bypass reason:**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i dont think there is ever a valid use case for the failed bypass reason

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you're probably right. I'll get some clarification as to why that was mentioned in the original DOD

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