NeedsWork flag being removed from PRs on commit?

[Ross Campbell]

The NeedsWork flag in Bitbucket (desribed here) is currently getting removed from a PR on any commit push, when this is enabled.

Is that intentional? Would you consider providing an option to only remove approvals instead?

This is quite inconvenient because a PR marked as NeedsWork should not be merge-able, but all the author needs to do is push any commit and it gets removed.

[Aleksandr Zuevich]

Hi Ross,

I suppose it makes sense. You marked a PR with NeedsWork flag, some work has been done and pushed.

By the way you need to configure merge checks, e.g. minimum approvals or all reviewers approve. For example for Bitbucket Server 5.7 you can find it here.

[Ross Campbell]

Hi Aleksandr,

Thanks for your reply.  You make a good point, I'll see about enabling minimum reviewers.

To elaborate a bit though, I sometimes will mark a PR as NeedsWork as it has something on the Operations side holding it up (waiting for client approval, things like that).  In other words, the reason a PR doesn't get merged isn't always due to the exact code changes within it.  That PR may then get reviewed by other engineers and small adjustments made (e.g. coding standards), but I want that NeedsWork to stick throughout that process.  We do want to have that PR opened and reviewed early though, so that it is ready to merge - we also trigger builds against PRs automatically, so we want that entire process to be complete but just hold off on the final merge step.

Do you have any suggestions on this sort of case? There is very little in Bitbucket for categorising or flagging PRs, honestly.  It sounds like I want something different from NeedsWork, and perhaps I am just using the wrong concept here, due to limited options. My only other thought would be to decline the PR (perhaps after builds have run), and re-open it at a later date, but that seems less than ideal...  Any suggestions at all here would be most helpful :)

I realize this is getting off-topic, I could open a separate question if that would be the right thing to do.

Many Thanks,

Ross