Skip to content

[Docs] Skip release notes checks on draft PRs - #300949

Merged
theletterf merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/release-notes-skip-drafts
Oct 27, 2026
Merged

theletterf merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/release-notes-skip-drafts

Conversation

@theletterf

@theletterf theletterf commented Oct 27, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

Draft PRs no longer get the release notes check or the "Changelog labels needed" comment. The check runs when the PR is marked ready for review.

Today release-notes / validate runs on every PR, drafts included. A draft that has no team label yet gets a failed check and a comment. Adding the label early pings the team before the work is ready for review. An example is #300907.

This PR changes .github/workflows/release-notes.yml and .github/workflows/release-notes-comments.yml.

In release-notes.yml:

  • skip-drafts: true skips the check and the comment while the PR is a draft. The skipped check does not block anything, because GitHub cannot merge a draft.
  • ready_for_review runs the check as soon as the PR leaves draft. Without this event, a PR that leaves draft is not checked until the next push or label change.
  • converted_to_draft replaces a failed check with a skipped one when a PR goes back to draft.

In release-notes-comments.yml, the comment job no longer starts when the release-notes run was skipped, which is what a draft PR produces. It used to start, find no decision, post nothing, and end green. Now it does not use a runner. This does not change what appears on a PR. It comes from #300954.

Depends on: elastic/docs-actions#442, released in docs-actions 1.69.0. v1 declares the skip-drafts input.

The change was tested end to end in https://github.com/elastic/docs-playground-release-notes-tagged/pull/75: ready → failed check and comment; back to draft → skipped; push while draft → skipped; ready again → failed check and updated comment.

Checklist

Identify risks

  • Low. The change only affects the release notes check on PRs. If a PR leaves draft without a ready_for_review run, it could merge with a skipped check; the ready_for_review trigger in this PR prevents that.

Generated by Claude Code

Draft PRs get a failed release notes check and a "Changelog labels needed"
comment before the author is ready. skip-drafts skips both on drafts. The
ready_for_review event runs the checks when the PR is ready, and
converted_to_draft clears a failed check when a PR goes back to draft.

Needs elastic/docs-actions#442 in docs-actions v1.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0198Z15QXfthJ2QgGztrDHtu
@theletterf theletterf added Team:Docs release_note:skip Skip the PR/issue when compiling release notes backport:skip This PR does not require backporting labels Oct 27, 2026 — with Claude
@theletterf
theletterf marked this pull request as ready for review October 27, 2026 18:05
@theletterf
theletterf requested a review from a team as a code owner October 27, 2026 18:05
@infra-vault-gh-plugin-prod

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/experience-docs (Team:Docs)

@infra-vault-gh-plugin-prod

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

💚 Build Succeeded

A draft PR skips the release notes check, so its run ends as skipped and
leaves no decision to post. The comment job then started only to find
nothing. This condition stops it from starting. Suggested in
#300954.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@theletterf
theletterf added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 27, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 8565819 Oct 27, 2026
37 checks passed
@theletterf
theletterf deleted the docs/release-notes-skip-drafts branch October 27, 2026 19:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport:skip This PR does not require backporting release_note:skip Skip the PR/issue when compiling release notes Team:Docs v9.7.0

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants