Billy Keyes

I like the idea of a local binary that can do everything without a server connection. This avoids possible security issues with the server, but also means your tests do...

As a starting point towards something like this feature, #725 added a simulation API that allows testing a policy in different situations given a real repository and running instance of...

Policy Bot should work fine with private repositories. Two things to check: 1. You've given the app all of [the permissions from the README](https://github.com/palantir/policy-bot#github-app-configuration), particularly the "Repository contents" permission 2....

The way we usually solve this is to directly make the `tests` status a required status check in GitHub. This way, the policy only reflects approval. If you need to...

I'm going to close this now that #752 is implemented and released in version 1.35.0. While the behavior of skipped checks may still be confusing, I tried to improve the...

As you discovered, Policy Bot was designed for overall/merge approval workflows and doesn't support the phased approval (approved for testing vs approved for merge) that your workflow requires. Given the...

The way we usually solve this problem (automatically merging PRs from bots or scripts) is a bit different: 1. Policy Bot is always a required status check in GitHub 1....

In some sense, Policy Bot already implements this behavior. If _every_ rule in your policy has a file predicate (either `changed_files` or `only_changed_files`), when someone modifies a file that doesn't...

Thanks for your contribution! Could you please recreate this as two PRs, one that adds the equality operator and one for the status changes? The equality operator seems straightforward and...

Sorry about the delay getting back to this. As I mentioned on the linked issue, I think this feature is something we can add with two changes: 1. Only skip...