Skip to content

Fix branch collision -- issue #7115#7128

Open
Dasux wants to merge 8 commits intoOSGeo:mainfrom
Dasux:fix-branch-collision
Open

Fix branch collision -- issue #7115#7128
Dasux wants to merge 8 commits intoOSGeo:mainfrom
Dasux:fix-branch-collision

Conversation

@Dasux
Copy link

@Dasux Dasux commented Mar 1, 2026

This PR resolves the issuue #7115 ... related to the update-i18n job in the Periodic update workflow.

Previously, the workflow used a static branch name:

periodic/update-i18n

This meant that every time the workflow ran, it reused the same branch to create or update a Pull Request. As a result, only one translation update PR could exist at a time. If the workflow was triggered again (either by schedule or manually) while a previous PR was still open, the same branch would be reused and the existing PR would be updated or overwritten.

What was changed

The branch name used by the create-pull-request action has been updated to include a unique identifier:

periodic/update-i18n-${{ github.run_id }}

so this ensures that

  • each workflow run creates it's own branch
  • multiple translation PRs can coexist at the same time... without interfering with one another
  • no existing PR is unintentionally overwritten

Verification

The workflow was manually triggered manually on a fork repo, and the branches were different each time. Each run created a distinct branch and corresponding Pull Request, confirming that branch names no longer collide.

image image

@github-actions github-actions bot added the CI Continuous integration label Mar 1, 2026
Copy link
Member

@echoix echoix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you review the diff, and only changes the lines needed? You removed lots of comments, changed comments where not needed, in short, it’s hiding the real useful changes.

Add yourself in the loop, like we wrote in the contribution guidelines/ai policy, and come ping me back when it will be worth it :)

Your solution with the run_id is probably better than using the ref/base_ref (that was previously mentionnend), as it it less prone to injection, so a bit better on security.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Revert that file, it’s not really part of the PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CI Continuous integration

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants