Fixed app version bump check false positives on stale PR branches

[kevinansfield]

What this fixes

• Uses merge-base to detect monitored app file changes instead of directly diffing base SHA to head SHA.
• Fetches main without shallow depth in CI so merge-base can always be resolved.

Why

The old diff strategy could include unrelated changes from main when a PR branch was behind, causing false-positive failures in the app version bump job.

Example failure:
https://github.com/TryGhost/Ghost/actions/runs/21980583293/job/63501979159

Testing

Ran the script with PR_BASE_SHA=2171ae59932382033c8384398a30af7017198008 and PR_COMPARE_SHA=9d946fb7c099f7c0c2c898aa5916dcd74e5bfb32.
Result: No app changes detected. Skipping version bump check.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request updates two GitHub workflow infrastructure files. The check-app-version-bump.js script modifies how changed files are computed by using merge-base between the base and compare SHAs instead of diffing directly from the base SHA, and adds error handling for when merge-base cannot be determined. The ci.yml workflow file changes the git fetch command for the main branch from a shallow fetch with depth limit to a full fetch without tags, enabling access to the complete commit history.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main change: fixing false positives in the app version bump check for stale PR branches, which aligns with the core purpose of the changeset.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining what was fixed (merge-base usage), why it was needed (false positives on stale branches), and providing testing evidence.
Merge Conflict Detection	✅ Passed	✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

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

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/app-bump-check-false-positive

---

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.77%. Comparing base (37c0d72) to head (c03c77d).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #26396      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.78%   72.77%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1562     1562              
  Lines      120942   120950       +8     
  Branches    14573    14571       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        88032    88027       -5     
- Misses      31875    31905      +30     
+ Partials     1035     1018      -17     

Flag	Coverage Δ
admin-tests	52.41% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
e2e-tests	72.77% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.