fix: stale workflow by trueberryless · Pull Request #2846 · npmx-dev/npmx.dev

trueberryless · 2026-06-03T16:45:32Z

🔗 Linked issue

Closesci: stale workflow not working #2845

🧭 Context

We want to automatically mark bug issues and PRs as "stale" after 30 days of inactivity and after 7 more days close them automatically. Read more in the original creation of this workflow: #2580

📚 Description

This PR fixes the issue by using two distinct labels for marking and closing.

vercel · 2026-06-03T16:45:38Z

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
npmx.dev	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 3, 2026 7:07pm

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
docs.npmx.dev	Ignored	Preview	Jun 3, 2026 7:07pm
npmx-lunaria	Ignored		Jun 3, 2026 7:07pm

coderabbitai · 2026-06-03T16:45:48Z

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The workflow file .github/workflows/stale.yml updates the actions/stale configuration to set both close-issue-label and close-pr-label to stale-to-close.

Changes

Stale workflow label update

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update close labels `.github/workflows/stale.yml`	`close-issue-label` and `close-pr-label` values changed from `stale` to `stale-to-close` for the `actions/stale` configuration.

Possibly related PRs

npmx-dev/npmx.dev#2580: Touches the same .github/workflows/stale.yml workflow for actions/stale.

Suggested reviewers

43081j
graphieros

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	⚠️ Warning	The PR changes only the label names (stale → stale-to-close) but does not address the root cause of the race condition between two parallel jobs interfering with each other.	The PR should consolidate the two jobs into a single job or implement job synchronisation to prevent the jobs from interfering when running in parallel.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The PR title clearly identifies the fix for the stale workflow issue by referencing the specific problem and solution.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes in the workflow file are directly related to fixing the stale workflow race condition issue.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description clearly relates to the changeset, explaining the fix for a race condition in the stale workflow by consolidating jobs and using distinct labels.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.github/workflows/stale.yml:
- Line 30: The workflow uses the actions/stale@v10.2.0 filter only-issue-types:
'bug' which also gets applied to PRs (causing PRs to be treated as undefined and
skipped); remove the only-issue-types key or replace it with an issue-only
filter such as only-labels (or move filtering under an issues-only job) so PR
handling (days-before-pr-stale and days-before-pr-close) runs; update the YAML
by deleting or commenting out only-issue-types: 'bug' and, if needed, add
only-labels: 'bug' (or equivalent label-based filter) to target issues without
affecting pull requests.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f13d781d-1c52-4c03-9afe-7058798b4425

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ebdbf0c and 0c83356.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

.github/workflows/stale.yml

codecov · 2026-06-03T16:50:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

MatteoGabriele · 2026-06-03T17:51:50Z

@trueberryless I think the issue is with the tag names. Both "stale-pr-label" and "close-pr-label" have the same name, so the action can't distinguish between them.
We should just give them 2 different names

something like

stale-pr-label: 'stale'
close-pr-label: 'stale-to-close'

trueberryless · 2026-06-03T17:54:16Z

@trueberryless I think the issue is with the tag names. Both "stale-pr-label" and "close-pr-label" have the same name, so the action can't distinguish between them.
We should just give them 2 different names
something like
stale-pr-label: 'stale'
close-pr-label: 'stale-to-close'

That's a good point. But do you think we could keep the same label if we merge the two jobs like here?

MatteoGabriele · 2026-06-03T17:55:16Z

@trueberryless you can't merge them since only-issue-types: 'bug' doesn't care about PRs. that's why we have 2

trueberryless · 2026-06-03T17:57:05Z

@trueberryless you can't merge them since only-issue-types: 'bug' doesn't care about PRs. that's why we have 2

Yeah, but maybe they merge my PR upstream...
Do you think waiting is worth it? 😅 They seem to still maintain PRs frequently 🤔

EDIT: we should probably add the "blocked" label here so it is more clear if we decide to wait 😉

MatteoGabriele · 2026-06-03T18:33:20Z

Blocked? Which moment in this process would be "blocked"? Also, if they fix it, we use it, but in the meantime, we do our own fix.

trueberryless · 2026-06-03T19:02:39Z

Blocked? Which moment in this process would be "blocked"? Also, if they fix it, we use it, but in the meantime, we do our own fix.

Sounds good 👍

This reverts commit 0c83356.

coderabbitai

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

.github/workflows/stale.yml (1)
34-49: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Serialise stale jobs to prevent the original cross-job interference.
stale-bugs and stale-prs still run in parallel (no needs), so the workflow can reintroduce the stale-label churn this PR series is trying to avoid. The close-label rename alone does not enforce execution order.
Suggested minimal fix
 stale-prs:
name: 🧹 Mark stale pull requests
+ needs: stale-bugs
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
permissions:
pull-requests: write # mark and close stale pull requests
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In @.github/workflows/stale.yml around lines 34 - 49, The stale job jobs run in
parallel causing label churn; make them run sequentially by adding an explicit
dependency so one job waits for the other (e.g., add needs: stale-bugs to the
stale-prs job or vice versa). Locate the job definitions named stale-prs and
stale-bugs and add the needs key referencing the other job (for example, in the
stale-prs job add needs: stale-bugs) so the workflow serialises execution and
prevents cross-job interference.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Duplicate comments:
In @.github/workflows/stale.yml:
- Around line 34-49: The stale job jobs run in parallel causing label churn;
make them run sequentially by adding an explicit dependency so one job waits for
the other (e.g., add needs: stale-bugs to the stale-prs job or vice versa).
Locate the job definitions named stale-prs and stale-bugs and add the needs key
referencing the other job (for example, in the stale-prs job add needs:
stale-bugs) so the workflow serialises execution and prevents cross-job
interference.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 9c65e8f7-4665-4730-b8c4-c4ba6d1b1985

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0c83356 and ebe7a5f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

.github/workflows/stale.yml

MatteoGabriele

trueberryless · 2026-06-03T19:58:37Z

You can't imagine how much I was waiting to see which GIF you would choose ❤️

EDIT: And now I see you even hit me with two. Oh god, give me more!!!

fix(ci): stale workflow
0c83356

trueberryless changed the title ~~fix(ci): stale workflow~~fix: stale workflowJun 3, 2026

vercelBotdeployed to Preview – npmx.dev June 3, 2026 16:48 View deployment

coderabbitaiBot reviewed Jun 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment thread.github/workflows/stale.yml

trueberryless added 3 commits June 3, 2026 21:03

Revert "fix(ci): stale workflow"
486aef5
This reverts commit 0c83356.

fix: use different labels
cf922cc

Merge branch 'main' into fix/stale-workflow
ebe7a5f

vercelBotdeployed to Preview – npmx.dev June 3, 2026 19:06 View deployment

coderabbitaiBot reviewed Jun 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

MatteoGabriele approved these changes Jun 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

MatteoGabriele added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 4, 2026

Merged via the queue into npmx-dev:main with commit 030a0ceJun 4, 2026
25 checks passed

github-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2026
chore: release v0.15.0 #2835
Merged

trueberryless deleted the fix/stale-workflow branch June 4, 2026 07:02

ayo-run pushed a commit to ayo-run/npmx.dev that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2026
fix: stale workflow (npmx-dev#2846)
e3fe3e5

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔗 Linked issue

🧭 Context

📚 Description

Uh oh!

vercelBot commented Jun 3, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitaiBot commented Jun 3, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Uh oh!

coderabbitaiBot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecovBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

MatteoGabriele commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MatteoGabriele commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

MatteoGabriele commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitaiBot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MatteoGabriele left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026•
edited
Loading

vercelBot commented Jun 3, 2026•
edited
Loading

coderabbitaiBot commented Jun 3, 2026•
edited
Loading

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026•
edited
Loading

MatteoGabriele left a comment •
edited
Loading

trueberryless commented Jun 3, 2026•
edited
Loading