[ci-scan] Treat maintainer-closed test-disable PRs as do-not-disable signal#128837
Merged
kotlarmilos merged 2 commits intoJun 1, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…signal Extends Step 4.7 to also search for recent closed-not-merged [ci-scan] test-disable PRs targeting the same test or KBE. A MEMBER/OWNER close of a prior test-disable PR is itself a do-not-disable signal, so the scanner does not re-file the same disable after a maintainer rejects it. Motivated by PR dotnet#128793, which re-filed the stackoverflowtester interpreter-mode disable that BrzVlad had closed in PR dotnet#128737 with a pushback to investigate the assert rather than mute the test. Neither the prior fix in PR dotnet#128760 (which added referenced-issue comment scanning) nor the existing open-PR dedup in Step 4.4 caught it: the do-not-disable signal lived on the closed PR, not on KBE dotnet#127899 itself. No 'gh aw compile' needed; the scanner loads this file at runtime via '{{#runtime-import}}'. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the CI failure scanner’s decision guidance (Step 4.7) so that a recently maintainer-closed (unmerged) prior [ci-scan] test-disable PR is treated as a “do-not-disable” signal, preventing immediate re-filing without new evidence.
Changes:
- Add a new “do-not-disable” criterion in Step 4.7 for recently (30 days) maintainer-closed, unmerged prior
[ci-scan]test-disable PRs matching the same test or KBE.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.github/workflows/ci-failure-scan.md |
Extends Step 4.7 to treat recent maintainer-closed test-disable PRs as a do-not-disable signal and defines the intended search / recording outcome. |
Copilot's findings
- Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
- Comments generated: 1
The previous wording lacked a closed:>= filter and referenced the closed event actor's association, which is not directly available without a separate events API call. Scope the search with closed:>=<30-days-ago> and rely on the PR comments' authorAssociation field (already returned by the comments API) to identify maintainer pushback. The combination of a maintainer pushback comment plus a non-merge close is the do-not-disable signal; the closer does not need to be the same person. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Contributor
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/runtime-infrastructure |
vitek-karas
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2026
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.
Description
Extends Step 4.7 of
.github/workflows/ci-failure-scan.mdso the CI failure scanner respects maintainer closes of prior[ci-scan]test-disable PRs. AMEMBER/OWNERclose of a recent (within 30 days) test-disable PR for the same test or KBE is now treated as a do-not-disable signal, and re-filing requires fresh evidence such as a new maintainer comment on the KBE greenlighting the disable or a clearly different failure signature.PR #128793 re-filed the
stackoverflowtesterinterpreter-mode disable that @BrzVlad had closed the day before in PR #128737 with a pushback to investigate the assert rather than mute the test. The earlier prompt fix in PR #128760 did not catch this case for two reasons: