-
Suggestion
-
Resolution: Answered
-
None
-
None
The use case I'm imagining is as follows:
My goal is to have 2 additional people look at my code before merging it. I am accomplishing this by requiring 2 approvals in order to merge a PR.
1. I create a PR and add Joffrey and Tyrion as reviewers:
2. Tyrion raises an issue
3. Joffrey decides to implement the issue himself, and pushes changes to the branch to be merged
4. Tyrion approves the Pull Request
5. Joffrey approves the Pull Request and merges
In this case, only 2 sets of eyes were really reviewing the code (rather than 3, as intended). I would like to configure this repo to require 3 approvals (2 independent and myself), to enforce that there are always at least 2 other people looking at the code, other than the originator - however I can't do this because Stash doesn't allow me to approve my own pull requests. It would be nice to have this option available.
- is duplicated by
-
- Closed
| Form Name | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[BSERV-4462] Allow Pull Request Owner to approve their own Pull Request
We are a team of 2 developers where I'm the lead and the other is new in the company and quite junior. I want to approve his PRs before letting him merge, but I don't see the point of letting him approving mines, as he doesn't even know the code I'm working on.
Seems legit case to me and frankly I don't even understand all the fuss about it as it could/should be just a simple option.
| Workflow | Original: JAC Suggestion Workflow [ 3394295 ] | New: JAC Suggestion Workflow 3 [ 3620970 ] |
| Status | Original: RESOLVED [ 5 ] | New: Closed [ 6 ] |
| Workflow | Original: BSERV Suggestions Workflow [ 2686513 ] | New: JAC Suggestion Workflow [ 3394295 ] |
It's so strange that Atlassian has such a great need for defining what pull requests should be for others and how other people should define their workflow.
Not being able to approve your own pull request is a huge limitation for us. Making vacation time a time where nothing can be done.
Yes we can solve our problems in other ways, but allowing a developer to approve their own pullrequest would be such a small thing. A lot easier then changing all of process - or convincing the company to drop Bitbucket all together...
In particular what is the nature of the work involved (is it lots of contributions from people, perhaps?)
A team of 3, requiring 1 approval for merge. Vacation time.... Dev 1 implemented something, pushed, but did not create a pull request. Then leaves for vacation. Dev 2 picks up the branch. Reviews it. Test it. Finds it ok, but finds and fixes a small bug. Dev 2 discuss this with Dev 3 and then leaves on vacation. Dev 3 is now alone at work, but has written words from both Dev 1 and Dev 2 that the branch is mergable. But he can't. Cause non of the two others ever created a pull request for it. And If Dev 3 creates it, he can't approve it.
This is a scenario that repeats it self with small variations throughout the summer. Time after time. And it's just stupid that is is this way. Just because someone else decides that this scenario isn't 'for real'.
Petri Nordlund
added a comment - I'm just blocked because of this. Please fix it, it's a bug. | Workflow | Original: Stash Workflow [ 627628 ] | New: BSERV Suggestions Workflow [ 2686513 ] |
| Status | Original: Closed [ 6 ] | New: Resolved [ 5 ] |
| Summary | Original: Allow Pull Request Owner to approve his own Pull Request | New: Allow Pull Request Owner to approve their own Pull Request |
This feature would be very helpful to us as well. In our case the issue is that if two developers are working in the same branch, they need to review the changes of the other one for the PR to be approved.
The workaround being to have a third user create the PR is strange and borders on being wrong because that third person might have no stake whatsoever in that branch but is suddenly now the reponsible one for it? That's just ... weird.
In my opinion all this could be easily avoided so that the PR creator can be part of the review team, but cannot be the only one. This way, you can avoid people approving their own work while still allowing these edge case workflows.
| Link |
New:
This issue is duplicated by |
Agree with all of the above, it is nonsense for the app to mandate how a business chooses to establish its CICD workflows. Add this capability already.