review:required filter behaving differently with stacked pull requests

[toniperic]

🏷️ Discussion Type

Bug

Body

We have branch protection rules in place that protect the default branch, requiring:

• all changes to happen via pull requests
• at minimum 2 approvals for each PR
• requires review/approval from a code owner
• use of merge queues for all our merges

When looking at the definition of review:required, it says

matches pull requests that require a review before they can be merged.

So for a long time I've been using is:open user-review-requested:@me review:required query to get the list of PRs that I've been requested to review, and that still require a review/approval to get merged. Or in short – to get the list of PRs that need my attention now.

This is a very convenient filter, because if I was requested to review something but it already got enough approvals, such PRs will be filtered out as it doesn't need my attention, so it keeps the returned list smaller.

However, we have just recently started using stacked PRs, and I've noticed the review:required filter doesn't work the same there.

So currently I'm looking at a stack of PRs (sadly private repo, so can't share it), where the first PR in the stack already has enough approvals for it to be merged (but it's not merged yet) – it has 2, and both approvals come from code owners.

It even has the green "Enqueue pull request" button at the PR detailview page (which additionally verifies it can be merged immediately), but the is:open user-review-requested:@me review:required query is still returning this PR when I query GitHub, even though it doesn't really need my attention.

Curious is this a bug, or is this difference intentional?

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[PrithwishDas101]

I can see why this is confusing. The filter is being used as a way to find PRs that still need attention, so returning one that's already approved kind of defeats the purpose.

Maybe the expected behavior needs to be clearer for stacked PRs specifically. It'd be useful to know whether review:required checks only the PR's own review requirements or also considers the state of its base PR and mergeability.

A good test case would be a stacked PR that has enough approvals, including the required code-owner approval, but hasn't been merged yet. The search result could then be compared with what the merge box says.

If the behavior is intentional, a note in the query documentation would help. If not, that test case seems like a useful regression test.