Hacktoberfest 2026:维护者为十月标记出来的 issue,仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

release: false should be the lowest priority rule

未关闭
#377 2 条评论 3 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
3/5
预计耗时
1-2 天
新手友好度
48/100
Issue 类型
缺陷
描述清晰度
描述清楚
活跃度
停滞
技术栈
javascript
领域
release, tooling

调研方向

从链接测试附近的 test/analyze-commit.test.js 开始,并阅读 lib/compare-release-types.js,尤其是 RELEASE_TYPES 的比较方式。在更改行为之前运行 analyzer 测试。完成的标准是:当后续规则使用 release: false 时,带 scope 的规则仍保留较高的 release 值,同时现有的 release-priority 用例仍然通过。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

Consider what happens when we expand this test to apply scope:

test('Return "false" for release type ONLY if the matching rule has no higher "release"', (t) => {
  const commit = {type: 'fix', scope: 'frontend'};

  t.is(analyzeCommit([
    {type: 'fix', scope: 'frontend', release: 'patch'},
    {type: 'fix', scope: '*', release: false} // <----- this should NOT override 'patch'
    ], commit), 'patch');
});

so this ruleset says "release fixes as 'patch' for the frontend, but don't release any other fixes in any other scopes"

this test will fail. because of this line: https://github.com/semantic-release/commit-analyzer/blob/master/lib/compare-release-types.js#L11

RELEASE_TYPES doesn't include false or null. so the algorithm starts to analyze our commit using our ruleset, and correctly identifies it as a 'patch'. then it considers the next rule, which says release === false. false is not in RELEASE_TYPES, so compareReleaseTypes() returns true, and the release value for the commit is incorrectly set to false, instead of patch.

this is problematic because it violates the advertised behavior of the release configuration: a commit will always be given the highest possible release value available from the given ruleset. if we consider "no release" the lowest possible release value - as I think is intuitive - then any other release value should take precedence.

the current algorithm treats no release as a special case without priority. or rather, it implicitly treats no release as the highest possible priority of release type, which doesn't make sense. no release cannot be the biggest release.

the current behavior thus renders the use case I've alluded to impossible, so i'll spell that use case out more specifically.

if you have a repo with several scopes, then you might want rules that govern how some scopes get released, and you might want only some of those scopes to get released ever. for example, if you have a project like this:

project/
  - frontend
  - backend
  - shared-tools

you might want to say something like this:

"release any frontend or backend commits according to standard rules. fix:patch, feat:minor, break:major. but don't ever release any commits in shared-tools no matter what."

here's an example of what that ruleset might look like:

[
  {scope: 'frontend', type: 'fix', release: 'patch'},
  {scope: 'frontend', type: 'feat', release: 'minor'},
  {scope: 'frontend', type: 'breaking', release: 'major'},
  {scope: 'backend', type: 'fix', release: 'patch'},
  {scope: 'backend', type: 'feat', release: 'minor'},
  {scope: 'backend', type: 'breaking', release: 'major'},
  {scope: '*', type: '*', release: false}
]

but for the reasons explained so far, that ruleset will never do what you expect. it will make any release impossible.

the simplest fix and what i would recommend is adding false, and null to the end of the list of RELEASE_TYPES. this would be a breaking change for people who expect release: false|null to override any other possible release value. but that perspective doesn't make any sense, and renders reasonable workflows impossible.

主要语言
JavaScript
星标
446
派生
82
平均合并
4 小时 10 分钟
30 天内合并 PR
10

环境准备

这个项目没有提供开发容器、Dockerfile 或贡献指南,环境需要你自己搭建:先看它的 README,通用步骤见我们的新手贡献指南。

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

semantic-release/commit-analyzer 的其他 Issue

查看 semantic-release/commit-analyzer 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 JavaScript Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。