Bump peter-evans/create-pull-request from v2 to v3.8.2 #1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![dependabot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/29110?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Bumps [peter-evans/create-pull-request](https://github.com/peter-evans/create-pull-request) from v2 to v3.8.2. - [Release notes](https://github.com/peter-evans/create-pull-request/releases) - [Commits](peter-evans/create-pull-request@v2...052fc72) Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
dependabot
bot
added
dependencies
|
OK, I won't notify you again about this release, but will get in touch when a new version is available. If you change your mind, just re-open this PR and I'll resolve any conflicts on it. |
dependabot
bot
deleted the
dependabot/github_actions/peter-evans/create-pull-request-v3.8.2
branch
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2021
Currently, the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor is called twice for composite background-color animation, once during paint time and once during the compositing stage. The reason is that we need the decision during paint and compositing consistent. That is, if the paint stage says the background color must be paint on the main thread, then compositing stage has to agree with that, and vice versa. However, this is dangerous because between the paint and compositing stage, things could change, especially the PaintArtifactCompositor, which is used by the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor. For example, it could happen that at paint time we have not produced / updated the property nodes for the current frame and we can make decision based on what was composited on the previous frame. Then at Precommit we have potentially updated / added / removed property tree nodes. In this case, the return value of CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor can be different, as a result, the background color animation won't run correctly. The reason we needed to know whether the animation could be composited here is that we didn't have a way to paint the background color off the main thread. More specifically, the BackgroundColorPaintWorklet::Paint() function can paint the background color only if the animation is running on the compositor thread. This CL makes following changes: 1. Make the BackgroundColorPaintWorklet::Paint() have the ability to paint the background color even if the animation is running on the main thread. The function needs two things: the current progress of the animation and the artifacts about the animation. So all we need is just getting the progress when the animation is running on the main thread. 2. With #1 being done, we no longer need to call the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor during the paint step. As a result, whether or not the animation can be running on the compositor thread is solely the decision during the compositing stage. This is much safer than the current code, because we no longer need to make a compositing decision during the paint stage. We don't need to add any new tests because we already have sufficient layout tests for background color animation being run on the compositor as well as on the main thread. As long as all tests pass, this should be safe. The main benefit of this change is that the code is now more robust, meaning that we don't need to worry about the decision made by the paint and compositing stage being different. This change is also a performance win because we no longer need to call the CheckCanStartAnimationOnCompositor twice. Bug: 1185272, 1182261 Change-Id: Ie072714fd1d05e6537e05cad45ad1da99e20125b Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2740697 Reviewed-by: Robert Flack <flackr@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Xida Chen <xidachen@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#863622}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 15, 2021
1. Only process ChildrenChanged() for the included root of a change. For example, if a <div id="root" style="display:none"> will be included because it is a potential relation target. If descendants change, the only ChildrenChanged() necessary to process is on #root. 2. Share common code for detaching a node and queuing up the appropriate children changes. This simplifies ProcessInvalidatedObjects() by removing one of the inner loops, and enables a follow-up CL to remove the outer loop as well. #1 results in a massive speedup for display none toggles. In combination with other recent changes in DetachAndRemoveFromChildrenOfAncestors(), is 7x faster for many-nodes-toggle-display-none in perf_tests . This change alone accounts for about half of the overall improvement. Follow-ups: - Restore lifecycle check by processing deferred children changes via nodes_with_pending_children_changed_ and not queuing via the traditional mechanism. While doing this, look for opportunities to consolidate more children changed events. - Remove outer loop from ProcessInvalidatedObjects(). Bug: None Change-Id: I80466fda792cd0ca6dd051065a42ba702e4cc8b1 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2946971 Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#891343}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2021
1. Use GetWithoutInvalidation() instead of Get() in DCHECKs. We should never call Get() inside of a DCHECK(), because this can lead to a different code path depending on whether DCHECKs are enabled. 2. Get() should not cause immediate side effects. At most, it should queue up an invalidation for later processing. Fixing #1 and #2 were required in order to get past a first set of errors introduced by the new test. 3. The actual fix -- avoid infinite loop by calling a special new SlotAssignmentWillChange(), rather than ChildrenChanged(), where a minimal GetWithoutInvalidation() is called that does not lead to IsShadowContentRelevantForAccessibility() => FirstChild() => RecalcAssignedNodes() => ChildrenChanged() ... (infinite loop). A simpler potential fix is in CL:2965317 but requires more research. It's also mentioned in a TODO comment. Bug: 1219311 Change-Id: Iafaa289f241a851404ce352715d2970172a2e5f8 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2961158 Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#892778}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2021
Relative offsets should be applied after fragmentation. Since we perform layout for OOFs once they reach the fragmentation context root (if applicable), we fail to apply any relative offsets at the correct time in the case of inline containing blocks. See CL:2851595 for how this was handled for the non-inline case. The changes required to accomplish this for inline containing blocks include: 1. We currently store an accumulated relative offset in NGContainingBlock inside the OOF node, which is any relative offset from the containing block to the fragmentation context root. We also need to store an accumulated relative offset from the inline container to the containing block in order to properly apply all relative offsets at the time of fragmentation. A new struct, NGInlineContainer, was added to the OOF node to hold the inline container object and the accumulated relative offset to the containing block. 2. A relative offset was also added to the InlineContainingBlockGeometry struct so that we have access to the relative offset from #1 when creating the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 3. The way that relative offsets are applied to inlines, it didn't seem straightforward to separate the relative offset from the normal offset, like we had in CL:2851595. Instead, store the relative offset for the inline and subtract it out from the OOF static position once it reaches the containing block, and subtract it from the containing block rect offset when determining the ContainingBlockInfo for the inline container. 4. Store the total relative offset (from the inline container to the fragmentation context root) in ContainingBlockInfo. This relative offset will then be applied after fragmentation is complete for the OOF as a result of CL:2851595. Bug: 1079031 Change-Id: I7198fec4c01e05ca54c51b2f215569b75b0b869e Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2995308 Commit-Queue: Alison Maher <almaher@microsoft.com> Reviewed-by: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Koji Ishii <kojii@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#902060}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2021
This patch adds a new produceCropId() API to mediaDevices. This API is called with a DIV or IFRAME element, and adds a new base::UnguessableToken value to that element's rare data structure. This token value will be used in followup patches in order to keep track of an element's location in the page and viewport. Based on the following design document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dULARMnMZggfWqa_Ti_GrINRNYXGIli3XK9brzAKEV8/ Bug: 1247761 Change-Id: I01cd67e2d4e3dfa7a86289f876e48c8b55095d0a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3173396 Commit-Queue: Jordan Bayles <jophba@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Elad Alon <eladalon@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#925544}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2021
…eVisibilityKeeper::PrepareToSplitBlockElement()` before splitting a text node It does the following things when caret is collapsed in a text node in a `<p>` or `<div>` element. 1. Split the text node containing caret to insert `<br>` element 2. Insert `<br>` element after it 3. Split ancestor elements which inclusive descendants of the `<p>` or `<div>` 4. Delete the `<br>` element if unnecessary from the left paragraph #3 and #4 are performed by `HTMLEditor::SplitParagraph()` and it calls `WhiteSpaceVisibilityKeeper::PrepareToSplitBlockElement()` correctly before splitting the block. However, in the case (caret is at middle of a text node), the text has already been split to 2 nodes because of #1. Therefore, it fails to handle to keep the white-space visibility. So that I believe that the root cause of this bug is, the method does much complicated things which are required, and doing the redundant things will eat memory space due to undo transactions. However, for now, I'd like to fix this with a simple patch which just call the preparation method before splitting the text node because I'd like to uplift this if it'd be approved (Note that this is not a recent regression, the root cause was created by bug 92686 which was fixed in 17 years ago: <https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/commit/2e66280faef73e9be218e00758d4eb738395ac83>, but must be annoying bug for users who see this frequently). The new WPTs are pass in Chrome. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D130950 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1740416 gecko-commit: 73567f6c2bcfa078836a36760498bb11747561dd gecko-reviewers: m_kato, smaug
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
By adding new exhaustive tests under ordering/, it was revealed that the ordering between navigatesuccess/navigateerror and the committed/finished promises was not always consistent:
1. Simply adding a currentchange event handler would cause microtasks to run during commit, which changed some ordering.
2. Calling transitionWhile() would take us from the zero-promise case to the 1+-promise case in ScriptPromise::All(). As the new comment explains, both the spec and implementation have an observably-different fast path for the 0-promise case which caused changes in ordering.
In the course of fixing this, I found out that the did_finish_before_commit_ code in app_history_api_navigation.{h,cc} was actually not a mitigation for the case it stated, where promises passed to transitionWhile() would settle faster than the browser-process roundtrip for same-document traversals. That is in fact impossible, since we only fire the navigate event after the browser-process roundtrip has completed. Instead, they were a mitigation for (1).
This commit then ensures consistent ordering, tested with new rather-exhaustive tests, in the following manner:
* We move the firing of currentchange to before resolving the committed promise. This eliminates (1) and allows us to delete the did_finish_before_commit_ tracking.
* We always ensure we pass 1+ promises to ScriptPromise::All(). This eliminates (2).
A consequence of this is that we are now more likely to get rejected finished promises, in cases like
await appHistory.navigate("#1").committed;
await appHistory.navigate("#2").committed;
Before, the finished promise for the #1 navigation would go through the fast path per (2), and fulfill before the navigation to #2 canceled it. Now that does not happen, so code like the above will give an unhandled promise rejection for #1's finished promise.
To avoid this, we unconditionally mark finished promises as handled. This follows some web platform precedent, e.g. stream closed promises, where the promise is one of several information channels (in this case the developer might also find out via the AbortSignal or the navigateerror event). We do *not* do this for the committed promise though, as if a commit fails, that's probably something more deeply wrong, and cannot be ignored.
All of these changes will require spec updates.
For the tests, we introduce a new ordering/ directory which contains cross-cutting ordering tests, and we consolidate a few tests into the newly-introduced variant-driven exhaustive ones. A couple of other tests were affected by these changes too or fixed as a drive-by.
Change-Id: I8a50ca28d009e0a8a2c94331cd17f29b0a8dc463
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3405377
Reviewed-by: Nate Chapin <japhet@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Domenic Denicola <domenic@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#963772}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
******************************************************************
*** SHERIFFS: please don't revert this CL if it causes web_tests
to flake/fail. If that happens, the cause is a bad
test. Please mark that test as flaky/fail in
TestExpectations, with a new crbug. Please block the
new bug against crbug.com/1395228. Thanks!
******************************************************************
Prior to this CL, a test like this:
```
<script>
window.onload = () => {
test((t) => { ... }, 'test 1');
test((t) => { ... }, 'test 2');
test((t) => { ... }, 'test 3');
};
</script>
```
would not run anything after test #1. The issue is that the testharness
immediately adds a window load handler that marks `all_loaded = true`,
and that ends the tests as soon as the first result from the first test
is processed. (The test runner waits for the first test because
`Tests.prototype.all_done()` also waits until `this.tests.length > 0`.)
There were various mitigating corner cases, such as if you started
the list of tests with a promise_test(), that would increment a
counter that kept the rest of the tests alive. Etc.
With this CL, the testharness-added window.onload handler runs a
setTimeout(0), so that `all_loaded` is only set to true after all of
the tests are loaded by any window.onload handler.
This exposed a few tests that should have been failing but were
masked by the lack of test coverage - bugs have been filed for
those. Also, several tests that were working around this via various
means are also cleaned up in this CL. I'm sure there are more of
those.
Bug: 1395228,1395226,1307772
Change-Id: I6f12b5922186af4e1e06808ad23b47ceac68559c
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4074305
Reviewed-by: Weizhong Xia <weizhong@google.com>
Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Xianzhu Wang <wangxianzhu@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1081558}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
This reverts commit 4a03c6c459fdbf11976a424aa02a1d094484134c. Reason for revert: This has caused tests in upstream WPT to fail, blocking unrelated PRs. It was still possible to upstream this because those tests weren't triggered on the change due to a bug: web-platform-tests#37623 There was an attempted fix for this: web-platform-tests#37549 But, quoting jgraham from the WPT Matrix chat: > the actual fix failed a test I wrote and now I need to spend some more time investigating Original change's description: > WPT: Allow `window.onload` to contain multiple `test()`s > > ****************************************************************** > *** SHERIFFS: please don't revert this CL if it causes web_tests > to flake/fail. If that happens, the cause is a bad > test. Please mark that test as flaky/fail in > TestExpectations, with a new crbug. Please block the > new bug against crbug.com/1395228. Thanks! > ****************************************************************** > > Prior to this CL, a test like this: > > ``` > <script> > window.onload = () => { > test((t) => { ... }, 'test 1'); > test((t) => { ... }, 'test 2'); > test((t) => { ... }, 'test 3'); > }; > </script> > ``` > > would not run anything after test #1. The issue is that the testharness > immediately adds a window load handler that marks `all_loaded = true`, > and that ends the tests as soon as the first result from the first test > is processed. (The test runner waits for the first test because > `Tests.prototype.all_done()` also waits until `this.tests.length > 0`.) > There were various mitigating corner cases, such as if you started > the list of tests with a promise_test(), that would increment a > counter that kept the rest of the tests alive. Etc. > > With this CL, the testharness-added window.onload handler runs a > setTimeout(0), so that `all_loaded` is only set to true after all of > the tests are loaded by any window.onload handler. > > This exposed a few tests that should have been failing but were > masked by the lack of test coverage - bugs have been filed for > those. Also, several tests that were working around this via various > means are also cleaned up in this CL. I'm sure there are more of > those. > > Bug: 1395228,1395226,1307772 > Change-Id: I6f12b5922186af4e1e06808ad23b47ceac68559c > Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4074305 > Reviewed-by: Weizhong Xia <weizhong@google.com> > Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> > Reviewed-by: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> > Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> > Reviewed-by: Xianzhu Wang <wangxianzhu@chromium.org> > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1081558} Bug: 1395228,1395226,1307772 Change-Id: Icbddad3a8bb47473bcbc331f424661b9041addf2 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4111318 Reviewed-by: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1085925}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2023
In the case that a popover contains an invoker that points back to that invoker, the tab navigation code used to get confused. E.g.: ``` <div id="menu" popover> <button autofocus popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #1</button> <button popoverhidetarget="menu">Button #2</button> </div> ``` In this case, trying to tab between the first and second button would break because the second button appeared to be an invoker for a new popover, when in reality it was an invoker for the same popover. Fixed: 1399601 Bug: 1307772 Change-Id: I276370d7c8eee0dd32f0c89da202a0d3777bf911 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4133482 Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1089080}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2023
Because of the order of operations for Clone(), previous to this CL, the typical sequence would be: 1. Clone the element 2. Clone the children of the element (recursing to step #1). 3. AppendChild() each cloned child to its parent cloned element. 4. (in the caller of Clone) AppendChild the cloned element to its eventual parent. Because each AppendChild triggers a call to Node::InsertedInto() for *all descendants of the appended element* [1], the fact that the tree is constructed bottom-up (leaf nodes first) means that InsertedInto() is called N^2 times, where N is the depth of the cloned tree. Because clone-and-append is a very common pattern, this CL adds an `append_to` argument to `Clone()`, which appends to the parent before appending the children. This CL also adds a perf test for this scenario (cloning a deep tree). Locally, on a debug build, this test gives 0.13 runs/s before this CL, and 0.40 runs/s after, for a 3.1X speedup. [1] https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/dom/container_node.cc;l=1006;drc=5d60017dba57e86d477634812e1340127734f8a7 Bug: 1453291 Change-Id: Icdd75c45aa5ecc4fe8bb5d1ff0b7a2b27bec2171 Cq-Do-Not-Cancel-Tryjobs: true Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4728983 Reviewed-by: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Auto-Submit: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Mason Freed <masonf@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1177922}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2024
See https://drafts.csswg.org/css-pseudo-4/#first-text-line 1. For a block container that establishes an inline formatting context, the "first formatted line" is its first line box, if it has one. Otherwise, there is no first formatted line. 2. Otherwise, for a block container that has block children, look inside the first in-flow block child (if any) and do #1 if it establishes an inline formatting context. Otherwise, do #2. In short, we don't need to search for line boxes in blocks after the first block child. If there is no line in the first child, there's no "first formatted line". There's no spec for "last formatted line", but apply the same logic. I.e. if the last block child has no line, there's no "last formatted line". This allows us to simplify things a bit, especially when it comes to re-laying out (kTextBoxTrimEndDidNotApply). The only case where we need this now is for blocks inside inlines: If the last formatted line is inside a block-in-inline, we need to go back and re-lay it out if it turns out to be the last line (which isn't something we can check inside block-in-inline layout). Note: When adding support for block fragmentation, trimming at a fragmentainer's block end will be another case where we need to re-lay out. The motivation for this change was text box trimming inside block fragmentation (upcoming CL), and be able to add support for that and still be reasonably confident that it won't become too complicated. This fixes one existing test. Some other existing tests had to be updated because of this change (they were making incorrect assumptions about first/last formatted line). As a result of that, some new refs had to be added, since other tests were piggy-backing on the same ref. Bug: 40254880, 367766472 Change-Id: I3fcc53af86353725b1f5705a5528493a72bf2e69 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5952979 Commit-Queue: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Koji Ishii <kojii@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1373765}
MattiasBuelens
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2024
This implements the core Sanitizer logic. This is still missing spec-mandated handling of "javascript:" URLs, and will have to be updated as the spec develops. But other than that, the basics are now there. ------------------ This a re-land of crrev.com/c/5922125. Patch set #1 is the original version, as reviewed and submitted there. Patch set #2 contains the fix. Analysis of the bug is in https://issues.chromium.org/issues/356601280#comment16 Bug: 356601280, 379235386, 379246316 Change-Id: I06d4a9a378330cc76015e3922b9e288d9503881a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6021482 Reviewed-by: Yifan Luo <lyf@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Joey Arhar <jarhar@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Daniel Vogelheim <vogelheim@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1385522}
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bumps peter-evans/create-pull-request from v2 to v3.8.2.
Release notes
Sourced from peter-evans/create-pull-request's releases.
Commits
052fc72Merge pull request #724 from peter-evans/fix-assigneesed00d46fix: use the correct assignees property34371f0Merge pull request #719 from peter-evans/add-to-listsc27ea51fix: add to labels and assignees instead of resetting5e9d0eeMerge pull request #712 from peter-evans/operation-outputb5f41d9feat: add pull-request-operation output2455e15Merge pull request #704 from jonico/support-ghes05bc467Support GitHub Server API URLadc6552Support GitHub Enterprise Server171fc6cMerge pull request #701 from peter-evans/update-distributionDependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)