release-please: Release please no longer making release PRs (There are untagged, merged release PRs outstanding - aborting)

If the support paths suggested above still do not result in a resolution, please provide the following details.

Environment details

  • OS: google-github-actions/release-please-action@v3
  • Node.js version: google-github-actions/release-please-action@v3
  • npm version: google-github-actions/release-please-action@v3
  • release-please version: google-github-actions/release-please-action@v3

Information

Somehow my repository ( https://github.com/case-contract-testing/contract-case ) has got into a state where release PRs are no longer being created due to:

⚠ There are untagged, merged release PRs outstanding - aborting

I tried to fix this by manually tagging a past release PR (which worked for generating this release PR), but after merging it, no tags or releases were generated, and the repo was left in this state again.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Unclear, I’m afraid

About this issue

  • Original URL
  • State: open
  • Created a year ago
  • Reactions: 2
  • Comments: 17 (11 by maintainers)

Most upvoted comments

Thanks. That’s how I manually fix this every time I merge a release pr:

  • Remove autorelease: pending label from all PRs
  • Tag the last merge commit with all the relevant versions

This will get it to generate the release PR again.

However, when you merge that release PR, release-please still doesn’t create any releases.

For example, this recently merged PR, resulted in this github actions run, which aborts with:

❯ Found pull request #145: 'chore: release all packages'
⚠ There are untagged, merged release PRs outstanding - aborting

(which is the exact release PR it is supposed to be processing).

Yes, that sounds like the bug I’m reporting here

Tbh, I can’t really recommend this library without a fix for this bug. The “workaround” is to manually tag the versions, and so release please is only used for generating changelogs.

@SurferJeffAtGoogle Could you give some insight on why this was deprioritised? I’m kind of frustrated that deprioritising it is the only interaction we’ve had from a maintainer 😕