Skip to content

docs(agent): the buildkite plugin needs a ci-scoped key, which the page did not say - #12749

Merged
mergify[bot] merged 1 commit into
Mergifyio:mainfrom
mergify-ci-bot:docs-agent/health-audit-integrations-and-migrations-1--buildkite-page-omits-the-ci-key-scope
Sep 9, 2026
Merged

docs(agent): the buildkite plugin needs a ci-scoped key, which the page did not say#12749
mergify[bot] merged 1 commit into
Mergifyio:mainfrom
mergify-ci-bot:docs-agent/health-audit-integrations-and-migrations-1--buildkite-page-omits-the-ci-key-scope

Conversation

@mergify-ci-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The page told readers the plugin reads "your application key" from
MERGIFY_TOKEN, without saying which scope that key needs. Application keys
carry one of two scopes and the scopes-upload endpoints accept only ci; an
admin key is rejected. A reader who picks the more powerful-sounding scope
gets a plugin that detects scopes correctly, writes its meta-data correctly,
skips the right steps, and then fails to upload — which is the one part of the
chain the merge queue actually consumes.

The omission is worth closing now rather than later because the Terraform page
gained the opposite instruction in the same change: its provider needs an
admin key, and it says so. A reader holding one key and reading both pages had
nothing to tell them the two integrations want different scopes.

The sentence now names the ci scope and links the scopes reference, in the
same form merge-queue/scopes.mdx already uses for the equivalent REST call.
Nothing else on the page changes; the surrounding explanation of what a missing
token costs was already correct.

Evidence: the security scheme the scopes endpoints declare in the API schema,
and the published scope table for application keys.

@mergify
mergify Bot requested a deployment to Mergify Merge Protections September 9, 2026 10:33 In progress
@mergify

mergify Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Merge Protections

🟠 1 of 6 protections blocking · waiting on 🤖 CI

Protection Waiting on
🟠 🤖 Continuous Integration 🤖 CI
🟢 👀 Review Requirements
🟢 Enforce conventional commit
🟢 🔎 Reviews
🟢 📕 PR description
🟢 🚦 Auto-queue

🟠 🤖 Continuous Integration

Waiting for

  • check-success = diagram-tokens
Waiting checks: diagram-tokens.
  • all of:
    • check-success = diagram-tokens
    • check-success = build
    • check-success = lint
    • check-success = test
    • any of:
      • check-success = test-broken-links
      • label = ignore-broken-links
    • any of:
      • -head-repo-full-name~=^Mergifyio/
      • check-success=Cloudflare Pages

Show 5 satisfied protections

🟢 👀 Review Requirements

  • any of:
    • #approved-reviews-by >= 2
    • author = dependabot[bot]
    • author = renovate[bot]
    • all of:
      • -head ~= ^docs-agent/
      • author = mergify-ci-bot

🟢 Enforce conventional commit

Make sure that we follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

  • title ~= ^(fix|feat|internal|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|build|ci|chore|revert|ui)(?:\(.+\))?!?:

🟢 🔎 Reviews

  • #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0
  • #review-requested = 0
  • #review-threads-unresolved = 0

🟢 📕 PR description

  • body ~= (?ms:.{48,})

🟢 🚦 Auto-queue

When all merge protections are satisfied, this pull request will be queued automatically.

@mergify
mergify Bot requested a review from a team September 9, 2026 10:37
@mergify
mergify Bot requested a review from a team September 9, 2026 11:36
@mergify

mergify Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Merge Queue Status

This pull request spent 6 minutes 8 seconds in the queue, including 3 minutes 36 seconds running CI.

Required conditions to merge

@mergify mergify Bot added the queued label Sep 9, 2026
@mergify
mergify Bot merged commit a05703d into Mergifyio:main Sep 9, 2026
9 checks passed
@mergify mergify Bot removed the queued label Sep 9, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants