Package rules by group

[DerYeger]

Currently, I'm using the following configuration to prevent Renovate from updating the Jest monorepo to v27.

"packageRules": [
  {
    "matchPackageNames": ["babel-jest", "jest", "ts-jest"],
    "allowedVersions": "<27"
  }
]

I noticed that all of these dependencies are already grouped together as jest monorepo. Is it possible to do something along the lines of the following snippet?

"packageRules": [
  {
    "groupName": "jest monorepo",
    "allowedVersions": "<27"
  }
]

[rarkins]

Try

"packageRules": [
  {
    "extends": ["monorepo:jest"],
    "allowedVersions": "<27"
  }
]

But if you're using GitHub or GitLab then instead I'd recommend:

"packageRules": [
  {
    "extends": ["monorepo:jest"],
    "matchUpdateTypes": ["major"],
    "dependencyDashboardApproval": true
  }
]

Otherwise you lose visibility into this upgrade plus need to make a config change if/when you decide to upgrade. I tend to set all major upgrades to approval like this.

[DerYeger]

Thank you! I tried the second variant (see https://github.com/DerYeger/vue-masonry-wall/issues/4 and https://github.com/DerYeger/vue-masonry-wall/blob/master/renovate.json), but this caused Renovate to reopen the PR instead of requesting approval. Is this intended behavior?

[rarkins]

It's not, but it also doesn't seem to be the exact rule I suggested.

[DerYeger]

It's not, but it also doesn't seem to be the exact rule I suggested.

Yes, I had to include @types/jest as well. I thought it wouldn't be a problem, since it checks if either match... key applies.

[rarkins]

Incorrect. It's an AND match, not OR

[DerYeger]

Ahh, I see. The documentation states "However you can mix together both matchPackageNames and matchPackagePatterns in the same package rule and the rule will be applied if either match." at https://docs.renovatebot.com/configuration-options/#packagerules/ which misled me.

[viceice]

Nope, you need at least one match... key in a package rule

[DerYeger]

Nope, you need at least one match... key in a package rule

I see, so there's nothing like matchGroupName yet? Thank you for the fast help!