ci: rename branch-protection caller job id so the required check reports - #23
Merged
rubenvdlinde merged 1 commit intoAug 4, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The org rulesets on main and beta require the status context `branch-protection / check-branch`. GitHub names a reusable-workflow context `<caller-job-id> / <called-job-name>`, and this caller's job was `check`, so it reported as `check / check-branch` — a context nothing requires. The required one was therefore never emitted at all, leaving it permanently pending and every PR mergeable only through the org-admin bypass. PR #20 makes this change on main. It does not reach development or beta, which were branched from main before it lands, so release PRs along development -> beta -> main would keep reporting under the wrong context. This lands the same fix at the head of that flow. Fleet-consistent: openbuild, pipelinq, decidesk and doriath all name the job `branch-protection` and carry this warning verbatim.
Contributor
Quality Report — ConductionNL/petstore @
|
| Check | PHP | Vue | Security | License | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lint | ✅ | ||||
| phpcs | ✅ | ||||
| phpmd | ✅ | ||||
| psalm | ✅ | ||||
| phpstan | ✅ | ||||
| phpmetrics | ✅ | ||||
| eslint | ✅ | ||||
| stylelint | ✅ | ||||
| build | ✅ | ||||
| test-unit | ✅ | ||||
| check-specs | ✅ | ||||
| composer | ✅ | ✅ 100/100 | |||
| npm | ✅ | ✅ 771/771 | |||
| PHPUnit | ✅ | ||||
| Newman | ✅ | ||||
| Playwright | ✅ |
Quality workflow — 2026-08-04 09:43 UTC
Download the full PDF report from the workflow artifacts.
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Part of the petstore#9 fix. Companion to #20, which makes the identical change on
main.Why this is needed even with #20
The org rulesets on
mainandbetarequire the status contextbranch-protection / check-branch. GitHub names a reusable-workflow context<caller-job-id> / <called-job-name>, and this caller's job wascheck, so it reported ascheck / check-branch— a context nothing requires. The required one was therefore never emitted at all: permanently pending, and every PR mergeable only through the OrganizationAdmin bypass. A dead gate whose absence looks exactly like its success.developmentandbetawere branched frommainbefore #20 lands, so they carry the old job id. Without this PR, release traffic alongdevelopment → beta → mainwould keep reporting under the wrong context even after #20 merges — verified on #22, where the check appears ascheck / check-branchandbranch-protection / check-branchis absent (count 0).This lands the same fix at the head of that flow.
Fleet consistency
openbuild,pipelinq,decideskanddoriathall name this jobbranch-protectionand carry the warning comment verbatim. petstore inheritedcheck:from thenextcloud-app-templatescaffold.docudesk(check:) andlarpingapp(protect:) have the same defect and are not fixed here.Context
petstore had neither a
betanor adevelopmentbranch, while the sharedcheck-branchpolicy requires PRs tomainto come frombetaorhotfix/*. Both branches now exist, andcheck-branchpasses on an ordinary PR — #22 (development → beta) reportscheck / check-branch: SUCCESSwith the job log✓ Branch check passed: development → beta.Two independent faults, both needed fixing: the missing branches (no source branch could ever satisfy the policy) and this detached context (the required check never reported). Fixing only the second would have made things stricter without opening a legitimate path.