Add auto mode based on semver commits by Kira2K · Pull Request #1720 · changesets/changesets

Kira2K · 2025-08-27T17:16:43Z

Auto Mode Feature Implementation

Overview

This PR implements an auto mode feature for Changesets that automatically generates changesets based on conventional commit analysis.

Key Features

New --auto flag for changeset add command
Integrates with @semantic-release/commit-analyzer using conventionalcommits preset
Handles breaking changes detection and scope-based bump logic for monorepos
Configurable via maxCommits, preset, and custom analyzer options
No breaking changes, full compatibility with existing logic

Technical Implementation

packages/cli/src/commands/add/auto-mode.ts - Main auto-mode logic
packages/cli/src/commands/add/semanticAnalyzer.ts - Commit analysis integration

Configuration & Usage

Configure via "auto": { "maxCommits": 100, "preset": "conventionalcommits" } in .changeset/config.json. (standart path)
Usage: npx changeset add --auto

Fixes issues

fixes #862
~~#1504~~
~~#1698~~

changeset-bot · 2025-08-27T17:16:46Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: ee4445b

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 15 packages

Name	Type
@changesets/cli	Minor
@changesets/config	Patch
@changesets/types	Patch
@changesets/apply-release-plan	Patch
@changesets/assemble-release-plan	Patch
@changesets/get-release-plan	Patch
@changesets/changelog-git	Patch
@changesets/changelog-github	Patch
@changesets/get-dependents-graph	Patch
@changesets/parse	Patch
@changesets/pre	Patch
@changesets/read	Patch
@changesets/release-utils	Patch
@changesets/should-skip-package	Patch
@changesets/write	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

Kira2K · 2025-08-27T19:10:10Z

The failing tests and Typecheck are the same as at current state of "main" branch, so it seems to be unrelated to the feature I added

codecov · 2025-12-04T04:58:07Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.35294% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.69%. Comparing base (3cb9982) to head (ee4445b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/config/src/index.ts	7.69%	12 Missing ⚠️
packages/cli/src/commands/add/auto-mode.ts	91.39%	8 Missing ⚠️
packages/cli/src/run.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
packages/cli/src/commands/add/index.ts	96.29%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1720      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.33%   81.69%   +0.35%     
==========================================
  Files          54       55       +1     
  Lines        2277     2409     +132     
  Branches      684      726      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits         1852     1968     +116     
- Misses        420      436      +16     
  Partials        5        5

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

rahul-sharma-uipath · 2025-12-05T04:34:14Z

please merge this PR - this would be super helpful :)

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:17:56Z

+      await addChangeset(cwd, { auto: true }, mockConfig);
+
+      // Verify both packages were processed
+      expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalledWith(


I think here the comment is not matching this expectation (or at least the expectation is not specific enough). Can it be more specific?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:18:13Z

+      await addChangeset(cwd, { auto: true }, mockConfig);
+
+      // Verify the function correctly identified conventional vs non-conventional commits
+      expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalledWith(


I think here the comment is not matching this expectation (or at least the expectation is not specific enough). Can it be more specific?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:18:32Z

+
+      // Verify breaking change was detected
+      expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+        "git tag --list --sort=-v:refname",


The same here.

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:18:47Z

+      await addChangeset(cwd, { auto: true }, configWithMaxCommits);
+
+      // Verify the function respected the maxCommits setting
+      expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalledWith(


The same here.

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:27:45Z

+
+const mockExecSync = execSync as jest.MockedFunction<typeof execSync>;
+
+describe("Auto Mode - Integration Tests", () => {


Why are there two integration tests files for auto mode? Should these files be merged?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:32:03Z

+    await addChangeset(cwd, { auto: true }, mockConfig);
+
+    // Verify git commands were called correctly
+    expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalled();


Should this expectation be more specific, as it was done on the previous test?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:34:41Z

+    await addChangeset(cwd, { auto: true }, mockConfig);
+
+    // Verify git commands were called correctly
+    expect(mockExecSync).toHaveBeenCalled();


The same here.

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:50:31Z

+          "description": "Conventional commit preset to use",
+          "default": "conventionalcommits"
+        }
+      }


Missing the analyzer? Or is it not part of the official configuration?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:51:36Z

+    maxCommits?: number;
+    /** Conventional commit preset to use (default: "conventionalcommits") */
+    preset?: string;
+    /** Custom analyzer function for commit analysis */


Suggested change

/** Custom analyzer function for commit analysis */

/** Custom analyzer function for commit analysis (for testing) */

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T17:53:32Z

+      }
+    }
+  }
+


Should analyzer also be validated? Or is it not part of the official configuration?

catiaraminhos · 2025-12-08T18:31:10Z

@bluwy Can you also take a look?

bluwy · 2025-12-09T01:15:14Z

Sorry, I'm not really interested in the feature request but if other maintainers think otherwise I'm happy to lend a review. At first it felt tedious to me too that changesets didn't rely on conventional commits for changes, but after getting used to it, I much prefer how it doesn't tie changes to git commits and that it encourages better changelogs.

sbsrnt · 2026-01-03T20:26:56Z

@bluwy counter points from someone who is fairly new to the changesets:

Small hotfixes (1-2 commits) are literally 1:1 of changeset summary and commit messages
For a medium amount of changes (~5 maybe 10 commits at most) I did find that the changesets summary is basically a glorified list of commit messages - you basically copy-paste what you already typed but instead you add dots to make it pretty
You can't really automate dependabot PRs for patch versions (well speaking of which there is How to automate dependabot updates generating a changeset #647 (comment))
Looking at the above points I can't see how this is better than automation

--auto mode from what I looked at is an optional way of creating changesets so by default you will still be encouraged to create better changelogs

Obviously, if you commit every single line of code, your commit messages are only "wip" or you have dozens of commits because you work on a new feature then this mode has little to no value because it will create noise.

I would say a more valid reason not to support this is a maintenance burden.
If this would get merged, then some users will take the feature for granted and expect full support of it from now on.

Personally, I do see a value for this mode for aforementioned points knowing I could simply do pnpm changeset --auto and push changes instead of re-typing the same message.

PI-Gorbo · 2026-01-18T01:11:04Z

This feature would be fantastic for my current workflow and I am in full support of it - but this voice is coming from a non maintainer (right now).

I enforce conventional commits, and I generally make my changers from my commits + a light summary sometimes.

It would be ideal to have an --auto mode which allows the changset to be inferred from the commits.

Kira2K force-pushed the semver-commits branch from f349c48 to 31804c1 Compare August 27, 2025 18:15

Kira2K changed the title ~~Semver commits~~ Add auto mode based on semver commits Aug 27, 2025

Kira2K mentioned this pull request Aug 27, 2025

Feature Request: Automatically Generate Changelog from Git Commit Messages #1504

Closed

Kira2K force-pushed the semver-commits branch 2 times, most recently from 29b6298 to 52ebe83 Compare October 13, 2025 01:57

catiaraminhos mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2025

Streamline changeset generation with conventional commit support #862

Open

Kira2K added 3 commits December 4, 2025 06:46

feat(@changesets/cli): add auto-mode based on semantic commits

d54312a

Add changeset using auto-mode

617ef9c

docs(@changesets/types): add semantic-commit-analyzer declaration

9ba84cb

Kira2K force-pushed the semver-commits branch 3 times, most recently from fc85529 to 52f1228 Compare December 4, 2025 04:57

chore(deps): update dependencies back to main branch version

ee4445b

Kira2K force-pushed the semver-commits branch from 52f1228 to ee4445b Compare December 4, 2025 05:08

catiaraminhos reviewed Dec 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

bojanrajkovic mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2026

chore(deps): migrate to native Changesets conventional commits support when available bojanrajkovic/grounds#23

Open

6 tasks


		const mockExecSync = execSync as jest.MockedFunction<typeof execSync>;

		describe("Auto Mode - Integration Tests", () => {

	/** Custom analyzer function for commit analysis */
	/** Custom analyzer function for commit analysis (for testing) */

Uh oh!

Conversation

Kira2K commented Aug 27, 2025 • edited by bluwy Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Auto Mode Feature Implementation

Overview

Key Features

Technical Implementation

Configuration & Usage

Fixes issues

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Aug 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

Kira2K commented Aug 27, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Dec 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

rahul-sharma-uipath commented Dec 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

catiaraminhos commented Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

bluwy commented Dec 9, 2025

Uh oh!

sbsrnt commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

PI-Gorbo commented Jan 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Kira2K commented Aug 27, 2025 •

edited by bluwy

Loading

changeset-bot Bot commented Aug 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Dec 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rahul-sharma-uipath commented Dec 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading