Skip to content

fix(ci): name the branch-protection job so the required check matches - #1239

Merged
WilcoLouwerse merged 1 commit into
developmentfrom
fix/branch-protection-check-name
Oct 6, 2026
Merged

WilcoLouwerse merged 1 commit into
developmentfrom
fix/branch-protection-check-name

Conversation

@WilcoLouwerse

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

The org ruleset on beta requires the status check branch-protection / check-branch. A reusable-workflow check is reported as <caller job key> / <callee job>, and this repo's caller job in .github/workflows/branch-protection.yml was keyed protect, so the check ran green as protect / check-branch while the required context never arrived.

Result: every development → beta promotion PR (currently #1026) stays BLOCKED on "Expected — Waiting for status to be reported", even with an approval and all checks green.

This PR renames the job key to branch-protection, matching portaliq and thematiq. No behaviour change in the check itself.

After merge

The sync-to-beta workflow updates #1026; its check-branch run then reports under the required name. The new head on #1026 needs a fresh approval.

Test plan

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The org ruleset on beta requires the status check
"branch-protection / check-branch". A reusable-workflow check is named
"<caller job key> / <callee job>", and this repo's caller job was keyed
`protect`, so the check reported as "protect / check-branch" and the
required context never arrived. Every development -> beta promotion PR
stayed blocked on "Expected — Waiting for status to be reported".

Rename the job key to `branch-protection`, matching portaliq and
thematiq.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@WilcoLouwerse
WilcoLouwerse merged commit 859a380 into development Oct 6, 2026
46 checks passed
@WilcoLouwerse
WilcoLouwerse deleted the fix/branch-protection-check-name branch October 6, 2026 13:55
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