Announce cherrypick failure if PR mergability state is blocked

[Julesssss]

CC @roryabraham

Details

The cherry-pick workflow does not post to the #announce Slack channel if the PR mergable_state is blocked (usually due to the status check not reading as updated). We should start doing this. This suggestion was made https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/206241#issuecomment-1096577227.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/207221

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
• Once this PR has been merged, I can test this by making a cherrypick with a PR that is not mergeable

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

N/A - this is purely a workflow change, no other code has been modified

PR Reviewer Checklist

• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • MacOS / Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there’s a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained “why” the code was doing something instead of only explaining “what” the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named “index.js”. All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn’t already exist
  • The style can’t be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

N/A - this is purely a workflow change

[Julesssss]

I noticed this while doing the mobile deployer chore last week. The PR auto-merge failed due to the mergable-state being blocked but there was no Slack announcement as it wasn't detected as a failure.

[melvin-bot]

@roryabraham looks like this was merged without passing tests. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[Julesssss]

@roryabraham looks like this was merged without passing tests. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

I removed the label. Merging was fine because this workflow change was obviously not going to fail the checks.

[Julesssss]

On second thoughts, I don't think it's a good idea to test this as whatever PR I cherry-pick will need to fail one of the checks. It's probably safer to just await the inevitable failure (it happened in 2/4 recent CP's I think)

[roryabraham]

I swear I didn't merge this before checks completed ... and that this same thing has happened to me a few times lately where the label was applied in error. Maybe I'm just going crazy...

Anyways, I agree that I'm confident enough in this little change we don't need to go out of our way to test it

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @roryabraham in version: 1.1.56-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @francoisl in version: 1.1.56-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅