Can we create pull request from master branch to master branch in Azure devops because our team will work on directly in master branch and we need to code review and approval method also.
No this isn't how git works. You would have to branch off of master and then PR these branches back into master. Committing directly to master is not a recommended practice
Contributions to a source code repository that uses a distributed version control system are commonly made by means of a pull request, also known as a merge request.
The contributor requests that the project maintainer pulls the source code change, hence the name "pull request". The maintainer has to merge the pull request if the contribution should become part of the source base.
A pull request can be accepted or rejected by maintainers. Once the pull request is reviewed and approved, it is merged into the repository.
The above is how to pull request works.
We can push empty commits via git commit --allow-empty -m 1, But for your situation, even no empty commits(Because the source branch and target branch always the same), so of course the pull request will not be able to created.
Another thing will clearly tell you the reason:
If you use this API to create Pull Request from 'master' to 'master', you will find it is not accepted.
The detection of whether the 'sourcebranch' and 'targetbranch' are the same is high priority, even before the detection of the existence of the branch, so what you want to achieve is not possible from the basic of the design.
Related
I found how to block/protect branch from pushes, force pushes but how to protect branch from pull requests? When somebody creates pull requests branch merges with branch which locked (f.e. master branch) without any problems or acknowledges. How to protect branch from pull request Of course if it possible?
Branch lock (protect branch from pushes);
Branch security (deny force pushes)
I want to make impossible to complete pull request to locked branch. Of course if it possible.
I tested locking a branch, the result of the test is that it can successfully prevent other users from completing the pull request and merge to the target branch.
When I lock the master branch, and then create pr from the dev branch to the master branch, when I click complete, I will be prompted to stop me from completing the pr.
In addition, locking the branch can also prevent me from committing to the locked branch.
So I think locking branch can meet your need.For details ,please refer to this official document.
Plainly block branch from any PR isn't possible as a singular feature. But you can use branch policies to achieve something alike.
ADO docs says you can set policies:
Add specific person as required approver (it can be you)
Require minimum number of reviewers (you can add 999 person)
Check for linked work items
Require approval from external services (via API)
Plain locking branch forever and whatever happens is not the best approach (you want to have opportunity to do that sometimes). Hope that helps.
Hm strange. Because in our case lock not preventing from PR.
Probably it depends on who made PR. His privileges in Project but I'm not sure...
master branch lock
successfull PR
Caveat: I am fairly new to both git and GitHub.
So, in my current setup, my team uses git flow Hotfixes (usually started and finished by a graphical tool such as GitKraken or IntelliJ) to make changes that have to be merged into two branches and pushed upstream in both. So for example the flow would be:
Pull latest from master
Start hotfix
Commit changes
Merge hotfix branch into both master and develop and push both upstream
We're now looking at moving our code into GitHub and would like to start using Pull Requests, for a couple of reasons:
CI hooks to run tests and stuff
a place to put code-specific comments not directly related to the underlying "issue"
avoiding the need for everyone to constantly be pulling the latest master/develop to their local machine so that they can merge changes
But in the case of Hotfixes, I'm not sure what to do because I'm merging into two branches but it really is one "action" so manually creating two pull requests seems weird, particularly since step 4) in our current flow is a single click.
Is there a smart way of handling this? My ideal case would be that pushing the Merge button on the Pull Request would just merge into both, but that doesn't seem to be an available option.
As you mentioned, a Pull Request has only one target branch, so you won't be able to push the hotfix to both master and develop by merging one Pull Request.
I'm also surprised you mention your step #4 - merging the hotfix branch to both master and develop and push upstream - is one action. While there's a high chance the merge from hotfix to master won't run into merge conflicts, I can't say the same for the merge from hotfix to develop since it could have been worked on since the last deployment to production.
My recommendation would then be the following:
Create one PR from hotfix to master and have someone review it to validate the fix
Once it's merged into master, create another PR from hotfix to develop and see if you run into merge conflicts
If that's the case, resolve the merge conflicts so the PR ends up in a state to be merged, and have someone review the PR
If there's no merge conflicts, then have someone review the PR
An alternative solution, if you really want to go down the automated path, would be to leverage both GitHub webhooks and API.
The webhook would allow you to be notified when a PR is merged. You could inspect the payload to make sure that the base branch starts with hotfix/ and the target branch is master. You could then react to that event by using the API to create a new PR from the same hotfix branch to develop.
It will involve some development, and the effort might not be worth since creating a PR via the UI is still quite easy and quick.
Say I have a repo and someone forks it. Then they do work and submit a pull request. But the code contains a large number of lines and/or it creates a GUI. I'd like to fetch it so I can actually see it run from Eclipse before merging it into my master. The options I've come up with are:
Create a second repo in EGit and clone directly from their fork.
Create a new branch just for them. Then leave a comment for the request asking them to re-submit the pull request using the new branch and that I'll be closing the current request (without merging)
Always keep around a branch for them to use in their pull requests.
Besides setting up an organization on Github what else could I do?
Then leave a comment for the request asking them to re-submit the pull request using the new branch and that I'll be closing the current request
They don't have to re-submit, it you test and merge first locally, as described in the "Merging a pull request" GitHub page.
git checkout master
git pull https://github.com/otheruser/repo.git branchname
If the local merge works, then you can go ahead and merge the pull request through the GitHub web interface.
GitHub has documented how to checkout a pull request.
As I have illustrated before in "What support for git namespaces exists in git hosting services", you can use refs/pull/<PRNumber>/head as remote pull reference, in command line or in Egit when, for instance, creating a new branch.
If the PR number is 123, you can simply use the EGit Pull action, and use pulls/123/head as reference.
I've done a few pull requests on GH already, but I committed to the master branch. Now I read on various places that it's a good idea to create a branch.
Are there any guidelines for branch naming? I usually work with Mercurial and give my branches the same name as their relevant bug ticket ID, but that doesn't work for this.
I've looked at a few repositories: some commit to master, some commit to fix-somebug, some commit to patch-1. I understand that this doesn't create conflicts, because pull requests are merged to master (or a different, long living branch) and the branch is then deleted, is that correct?
The idea behind a branch for a pull request is to allow for said branch to be automatically deleted once the pull request is accepted.
And since April 2013, that branch will be deleted for you:
You are then suppose to update/rebase your master from the master of the upstream repo in order to get what you developed in isolation a branch from the official repo that you have forked (since that repo has accepted your pull request)
The name of the branch should represent the development effort you are engaged in.
It is always a good practise to make commit on the git branches rather than master. You can use any name for your git branch(it doesn't allow spaces in branch names, also some special characters).
I've made multiple commits to my local repository and now I intend to do pull request to submit these changes over to the source/master.
When I do a pull request, it automatically includes all of my commits. I couldn't locate a way to submit each commit in its own pull request. Could someone please give some pointer on how to do this on GitHub.
Update
To clarify on this question, I forked a new local repo from upstream/master. Then, in my noobie-ness, I made new files in my local master itself without branching repo out first. So, effectively, my question is with these changes committed to local master repo, is there a way to raise pull requests for each new file one by one, and not for all of them in one go.
Many Thanks.
I'm not sure if there is a better way in GitHub, but in general, you can create a new branch for each pull request, cherry-picking the commits you want for each request.
The new branches should preferably be based on upstream master to make the merge painless.
Using command line git, using origin as your own github remote repo, upstream is the upstream remote:
git checkout -b {my_pull_request_feature_branch} upstream/master
git cherry-pick {sha1_of_first_commit_for_feature_X} [sha1_of_another_commit_for_feature_X] ...
git push origin {my_pull_request_feature_branch}
Repeat for each pull request.
When you do a pull request on GitHub you can then choose which branch you want to send in your request.
A commit does not stand on its own, it always links to the full previous history. So if you ask to pull commit B which depends on your commit A, then you are also asking to pull A, because your work in B depends on it.
If you want to submit multiple independent pull requests, you should make sure that those commits are completely independent of each other. So they should be on their own branches. This also makes it easier for the project maintainers to integrate your pull request, as they can just merge the branch without having to cherry-pick stuff.