Use Trace208 in Votes to support ERC6372 clocks by Amxx · Pull Request #4539 · OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts (original) (raw)

In 74b8d26 I added continue-on-error for the storage layout checks if the PR is labelled as "breaking change". But note that this doesn't re-run the checks when the label is applied. To do that we would need to add these lines in checks.yml but I feared they might cause tests to restart too often:

types:

- opened

- synchronize

- labeled

- unlabeled

Also, we may want to use a separate label specific to storage breakage, so we don't accidentally miss storage changes when we're doing a less serious breaking change in a minor release. @Amxx what do you think?

types:
- opened
- synchronize
- labeled
- unlabeled

A tag is nice, but I think we should also consider the changeset. This could be done in two ways:

Forget the tag, and automatically disable the storage check if there is a "major" changeset.
Keep the tag, but add a check that if this tag is turned on, then we must have a "major" changeset.

I don't have a strong opinion for the tag name. I'm ok with "breaking change", but if you want to make it more storage specific, then "storage change" would be ok I guess.

The question is, do we want all "breaking change" tags to require a major changeset, or do we accept such tags in patch releases?