@Xnero This is the sort of thing that is probably worth noting in PR descriptions, lest someone, say, spend a bunch of time trying to figure out why the /repos/{}/pulls/{}/check-runs API doesn't seem to work :-) I left you a couple comments on the blacklisters-approving-PRs PR, though do note that my review is coming from a place of being only mildly familiar with SD internals. Generally, though, looking forward to being able to use that feature :-)
(also, I didn't test it either, because I don't have SD set up locally)
@SmokeDetector they've since edited the post to have icalevoters.com instead of ww.unicalevoters.com in the text, but...neither domain resolves, so I dunno what's up with that
@cigien Not sure if anyone ever answered this, but I've done this on a number of occasions and never had any issues. It's helpful when providing the context behind a spam campaign where all (or most of) the other posts are deleted. Just keep in mind that regex search won't work for logged-out users (a mistake I've made a few times).
I either got a mod with a metasmoke account or they figured it out without the benefit of the search.
@RyanM No, you're first to respond, so thanks for that :) I appear to have closed the tabs that had the posts I was considering flagging, so I'm not sure I'll be able to track them down. But I'll keep that in mind for next time at least.
@cigien I hadn't seen this message. I must have missed it when reading the transcript. Yes, it's fine to include links to MS in custom flags. I include such links in custom flags on an irregular basis. MS links are particularly helpful for providing the context when posts and/or user accounts are spread out across multiple SE sites. I've definitely included an MS link in a custom flag within the last 24 hours.
@Makyen Noted, thanks. I didn't raise the flag because I wasn't sure if it's kosher to add MS links, but now I'm annoyed with myself for not at least saving the tab. I don't seem to have added it to my notes either, so now I just have to hope I remember, or can track down the posts that I wanted to flag.
@Makyen Yeah, that will definitely work since I haven't cleared my history. Still, 2 days worth of history is annoying to have to go through, since I only vaguely remember the posts. I do know which site it was, so that'll help. Guess I'll just have to suck it up and go through the history. It'll teach me a lesson to be a bit more organized at least :)
@cigien Hopefully it shouldn't be too bad. You know when you posted the question, and you should be able to sort the browser history by visit date/time...
@Makyen Hmm, that's true. While I didn't open the tab exactly when I posted the question, that will certainly narrow down the window that I have to look at to a few hours. This might not be as tedious as I'd imagined.
@Makyen Could you please commit a change that will add the owner ID in the comment so I know what it looks like for sure? It won't make a difference functionality wise.
@Xnero Despite some potentially ambiguous statements, I think Makyen's note here indicated that it should check all the statuses (potentially in addition to verifying that at leastci/circleci: build is there:
@Xnero All of the most recent set of CI tests for the head commit need to have passed, with the exception of PullApprove. For the CI tests, there may, or may not, be multiple CircleCI tests which are distinguished by the value of context.
Thomas also noted here that everything except PullApprove should be checked:
and you would HAVE to verify all other CI states except PullApprove are success in order to safely ignore PullApprove and accept an overall 'pending' state
(they can, of course, both speak for themselves too)
user435118
@RyanM There could be GitHub pages builds so you can't check everything apart from PullApprove.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, username similar to website in answer (234): Speeding up web development by Itsolz on stackoverflow.com
@Xnero You mentioned earlier that you don't have git set up locally. It has a somewhat rough learning curve, but once you get the hang of it, it does make having multiple changes in flight at once easier (you just keep them all in different branches).
@Xnero My intent in what I was saying was that Circle CI was merely an example of what did exist, not to limit the checks to only Circle CI. We have previously used multiple other CI providers for testing of various sorts. We may choose to use other providers in the future. In fact, adding another one has been proposed in a PR, but is unlikely to be used.
@Xnero I'm sorry to hear that you lost the code you were working on. It's always frustrating to loose something you've spent time working on.
@Makyen @Xnero I'm sorry that we ended up miscommunicating about this. I'll try to be more clear in the future.
@gparyani but if one isn't using git on the other end (e.g., just downloading the repository ZIP file and then using GitHub's online editor to create PRs) then it could get...extremely fiddly trying to keep all that organized.
Not that git rebase is a model of clarity or anything, but it's better than nothing :-)
Of course, git also has plenty of ways to delete your work...I've done it myself by overwriting the working directory when I wasn't paying enough attention, and once when I accidentally overwrote the .git directory in a file copying/moving mishap.
@RyanM This has nothing to do with you but I won't be working on the PR anymore or any other PRs for that matter for a few reasons. If you want to continue the code is still available in GitHub.
@RyanM Everythings fine. It's just I'm not enjoying doing these PRs. Originally I used to but it made me really annoyed yesterday and it became too much and I don't want that to come out in my responses otherwise I'll get kicked out again.
