nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Is there a "merge check" that requires the PR's source branch to be up-to-date with the destination?

Michael J Smith

Here's the scenario:

Dev A branches from develop and creates branch "feature/abc-123". Dev A then pushes a commit to their feature branch and creates a Pull Request to merge "feature/abc-123" back into the develop branch.

While that first PR is in review, Dev B branches from develop and creates branch "bugfix/abc-456". Dev B fixes the issue quickly, pushes a commit, creates a PR.

The team reviews the PR for the bugfix first, since it is higher priority. The PR for "bugfix/abc-456" gets approved and merged into the develop branch.

The first PR from Dev A is now stale. That is, the branch "feature/abc-123" no longer has all of the latest updates from the develop branch. The workflow process for my team would *require* Dev A to merge develop into feature/abc-123 before the PR can be approved. Is there a Bitbucket workflow or merge check that will notify the user in the PR that the source branch is NOT up-to-date?

If not, this becomes a manual process of checking that the source branch is up to date before clicking Merge on any PR.

And yes, we have a Premium account, so we are able to configure merge checks to be required before the Merge button can be used.

Here's an attempt at illustrating the desired process:

develop ==> feature/abc-123   (branched)
develop ==> bugfix/abc-456    (branched)
feature/abc-123 ==> develop   (PR merged)


bugfix/abc-456 XXXX> develop  (merge attempt is blocked)

develop ==> bugfix/abc456     (merged)
bugfix/abc-456 ==> develop    (PR merged)

Thanks in advance!

Accepted answers

Julius Davies _GitBoost_com_

Bitbucket Server: both of our paid add-ons can enforce this: Control Freak for Bitbucket Server, and Bit-Booster - Rebase Squash Amend.

In Control Freak the setting is called "Require Fast-Forwardable Merges" (via settings --> control freak).

In Bit-Booster the merge-check is called: "Bit-Booster Require Fast-Forwards"

Note: Control Freak allows global, per-project, per-repo configuration, with support for exemptions, whereas Bit-Booster only allows per-repo configuration. Both apps default to "off" for this merge and push check.

Bitbucket Cloud (a.k.a. bitbucket.org): I don't think such a check is possible at this time.

All comments

Julius Davies _GitBoost_com_

Bitbucket Server: both of our paid add-ons can enforce this: Control Freak for Bitbucket Server, and Bit-Booster - Rebase Squash Amend.

In Control Freak the setting is called "Require Fast-Forwardable Merges" (via settings --> control freak).

In Bit-Booster the merge-check is called: "Bit-Booster Require Fast-Forwards"

Bitbucket Cloud (a.k.a. bitbucket.org): I don't think such a check is possible at this time.

Michael J Smith

Okay. I am looking for a solution in Bitbucket Cloud, so it seems that we'll need to apply this as a manual check for now.

Thanks for the quick response!

mykhailo-riabokon

@Michael J Smith Hello.

I am looking for the same answer and as you replied almost half a year ago I am wondering did you find some workaround for your case? Thank you for any help.

Michael J Smith

No, unfortunately this request is still unfulfilled in Bitbucket Cloud. My team has added a manual (human) process to merge master into the branch and wait for a successful build result before merging any PR. This is part of what we do for each PR and there isn’t anything in the system to enforce it.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

bitbucket

workflow

pull-request

merge