You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Having tested backport functionality in the [Cody
repo](sourcegraph/cody#6119) I'm now adding it
here too.
This PR adds a backport github action based our backport tooling in
sourcegraph/backport
It uses the almost the same label as the Cody one, but with a slightly
different base branch (backport jetbrains-v<version-number>). Notably,
the `jetbrains-v<version-number>` branch doesn't appear to be the
standard here, but I think we should adopt the same convention that is
used in Cody.
## Test plan
CI
<!-- All pull requests REQUIRE a test plan:
https://sourcegraph.com/docs/dev/background-information/testing_principles
Why does it matter?
These test plans are there to demonstrate that are following industry
standards which are important or critical for our customers.
They might be read by customers or an auditor. There are meant be simple
and easy to read. Simply explain what you did to ensure
your changes are correct!
Here are a non exhaustive list of test plan examples to help you:
- Making changes on a given feature or component:
- "Covered by existing tests" or "CI" for the shortest possible plan if
there is zero ambiguity
- "Added new tests"
- "Manually tested" (if non trivial, share some output, logs, or
screenshot)
- Updating docs:
- "previewed locally"
- share a screenshot if you want to be thorough
- Updating deps, that would typically fail immediately in CI if
incorrect
- "CI"
- "locally tested"
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Kalan <[email protected]>
0 commit comments