Skip to content

Conversation

@rpbourret
Copy link

The basics

The details

Resolves

Notes that Blockly is Open Source.

Proposed Changes

Notes that Blockly is Open Source.

Reason for Changes

Blockly is Open Source.

Test Coverage

Documentation

Additional Information

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Welcome! It looks like this is your first pull request in Blockly, so here are a couple of tips:

  • You can find tips about contributing to Blockly and how to validate your changes on our developer site.
  • All contributors must sign the Google Contributor License Agreement (CLA). If the google-cla bot leaves a comment on this PR, make sure you follow the instructions.
  • We use conventional commits to make versioning the package easier. Make sure your commit message is in the proper format or learn how to fix it.
  • If any of the other checks on this PR fail, you can click on them to learn why. It might be that your change caused a test failure, or that you need to double-check the style guide.
    Thank you for opening this PR! A member of the Blockly team will review it soon.

BenHenning added a commit to RaspberryPiFoundation/blockly that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2025
## The basics

- [x] I [validated my changes](https://developers.google.com/blockly/guides/contribute/core#making_and_verifying_a_change)

## The details
### Resolves

Fixes #9447

### Proposed Changes

Pin the `actions/first-interactions` action to v1.3.0 and update the input parameters. Configure Dependabot to no longer try to upgrade this version.

### Reason for Changes

There are three sets of failures being addressed here:
1. `v3.0.0` introduces a breaking changes by renaming the input names.
2. `v3.1.0` introduces a breaking change that somehow enforces `issue_message` being required which isn't being defined for Blockly (we only welcome on PRs). This hasn't been addressed by the action author so this PR pins to v3.0.0 to go back to a working version.\*
3. `v2` introduced a breaking behavioral change that caused all runs of the workflow to outright fail by not being compatible with `pull_request_target`.

\* Technically it was broken when upgraded in #9323 due to a warning (rather than error) enforcing the now-required parameters. That was hiding a failure introduced when upgraded in #9274 that outright broke the workflow due to it running with `pull_request_target`.

### Test Coverage

The team doesn't utilize automated tests for the workflow configurations themselves thus verifying them through running CI is sufficient.

BenHenning#16 (review) demonstrates this passing and working correctly with a merged in version of this branch (since the workflow uses `pull_request_target` it cannot be verified in this PR's CI workflow) for a 'new' contributor (thanks for the help @rpbourret and @maribethb).

### Documentation

No documentation changes are needed for this workflow configuration change.

### Additional Information

Nothing to add that's not above or in the filed bug.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant