You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
I have a complaint about how Bitbucket describes automated approval retraction for a changed Pull Request.
Right now, there isn't a distinction in the PR history or notifications between a reviewing user that deliberately retracts their approval versus when the PR automatically retracts that approval upon the branch receiving a new commit. Since the reviewer isn't the one actually un-approving the PR, the text as currently shown is incorrect, as it states that the approval retraction was that user's own action.
Make a pull request for a branch with commits.
Add a reviewer. We'll call her "Barb".
Have "Barb" approve the request.
Push a new commit to the branch.
What currently happens:
I receive a notification that "Barb" has marked the PR as unapproved.
The PR overview/history shows that "Barb" marked the PR as unapproved.
What should happen:
The notification should communicate in some manner that Bitbucket has retracted Barb's approval (and the approval of any other reviewers) because a new commit was added to the branch.
The PR overview/history should also show that Bitbucket retracted all approval(s) because a new commit was added to the branch.