[Feature Request] Allow specified actors to bypass required status checks

[lclausen-r7]

Similar to the branch setting Allow specified actors to bypass required pull requests, it would be very helpful to have similar granular control for status checks where specified accounts can merge without status checks passing. This would be helpful for automating tasks within repositories

[mightyiam]

A workaround is to push to a temporary branch, wait for the checks to pass and then push to the protected branch.
Of course, this feature would be much nicer.

[PascalBourdier]

Ok but you have to create PR to trigger checks ?

[mightyiam]

@PascalBourdier if the workflows that are marked as your checks are triggered by merely pushing then no PR is necessary.

[esran]

This would be super useful for things like automated version bump of repositories without having to force it through on an admin account. Nobody wants to give automated tools admin!

[natanans]

I cant agree more!

[sricks]

This could be useful, but we also need granularity over which status checks can be bypassed. Not having this granularity encourages bad security practices.

Imagine if you have one status check "virus-free" and one status check "function declarations are alphabetized". We want to ensure 100% of branches are virus-free, but engineers may need to deploy a PR without alphabetized function declarations (or whatever other silly requirement you may think of).

There's no way to disable one without the other.

[mightyiam]

This feature without selective status checks would be better than not having this feature. Not having this feature already encourages workarounds that are less secure.

[johnjelinek]

This feature would allow terraform to use a service account user to push files directly to github repos without going through the whole PR flow. This is a much needed feature.

[Colin-b]

Much needed feature, having to wait for a runner to perform checks (actual one or dummy one with the same name/id) is not a proper option, so is temporary deactivating those required status checks.

[justinmchase]

Looks like a duplicate of this discussion: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/43460

I too need this for a version incrementing task. It definitely seems legitimate to me for certain automated tasks to be able to commit directly to a protected branch without status checks.

[rfkd]

Need that, too. Any update?

[na-jakobs]

+1

[na-jakobs]

Much needed feature 🙏

[justinmchase]

It looks like the new "ruleset" features will support this. I haven't tested it out yet though.

[justinmchase]

I tested it out finally, by the way, and it solves it all perfectly. Great implementation, thank you all!

[raihle]

The Ruleset / Rules feature mentioned above (currently in public beta) does fix this! 🎉

[johnjelinek]

link?

[neotrow]

Can also confirm that this works for our use case 🎉

@johnjelinek https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-rulesets/about-rulesets

[petedenham]

Please skip checks based on the commit message or a label. Then I can skip the automated tests on small document changes and merge even though they are required and have not been run.

[justinmchase]

I don't think there is a way to do that safely.

[rfkd]

When will rulesets be available in GHES?

[coopernetes]

According to the public roadmap, it's scheduled for GHES 3.11:
https://github.com/orgs/github/projects/4247/views/5?filterQuery=label%3Aserver+-status%3AWelcome%21++repository&pane=issue&itemId=21176211