<!-- The first four sections: "Problem to solve", "Intended users", "User experience goal", and "Proposal", are strongly recommended, while the rest of the sections can be filled out during the problem validation or breakdown phase. However, keep in mind that providing complete and relevant information early helps our product team validate the problem and start working on a solution. --> ### Problem to solve When trying to create a protected branch without the required permissions, GitLab helpfully outputs a message explaining that the branch is protected. *However*, protected branches can be reserved in advance with globs, and it may not be obvious to the user which glob they matched. ### Intended users Anyone creating branches <!-- Who will use this feature? If known, include any of the following: types of users (e.g. Developer), personas, or specific company roles (e.g. Release Manager). It's okay to write "Unknown" and fill this field in later. Personas are described at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/ * [Cameron (Compliance Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#cameron-compliance-manager) * [Parker (Product Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#parker-product-manager) * [Delaney (Development Team Lead)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#delaney-development-team-lead) * [Presley (Product Designer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#presley-product-designer) * [Sasha (Software Developer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sasha-software-developer) * [Devon (DevOps Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#devon-devops-engineer) * [Sidney (Systems Administrator)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sidney-systems-administrator) * [Sam (Security Analyst)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sam-security-analyst) * [Rachel (Release Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#rachel-release-manager) * [Alex (Security Operations Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#alex-security-operations-engineer) * [Simone (Software Engineer in Test)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#simone-software-engineer-in-test) * [Allison (Application Ops)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#allison-application-ops) * [Priyanka (Platform Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#priyanka-platform-engineer) * [Dana (Data Analyst)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#dana-data-analyst) --> ### User experience goal The user should be able to tell at a glance which part of the branch name was illegal ### Proposal Expand the error message with the pattern that matched the branch name. The message currently says ``` You are not allowed to create protected branches on this project. ``` but I would like it to say something like: ``` You are not allowed to create protected branches on this project (branch name "$branch" matched protected branch pattern "$pattern") ``` ### Further details As an example affecting our own engineers, `gitlab-org/gitlab` seems to have a glob of the form `*auto-deploy*`, preventing any branch with `auto-deploy` as a substring from being created. This is understandable, as it has to do with how GitLab.com is deployed, but GitLab also has a *feature* called **Auto Deploy**, and an external CI component called `auto-deploy-image`. Thus, engineers are likely to end up using `auto-deploy` as a substring in their branch name when working on a feature, and have a hard time figuring out why that branch name is protected. I have personally run into this, and so has @Alexand. The error message looks like this: ``` $ git push -u origin jcunha/set-auto-deploy-image-to-0-17-0 Enumerating objects: 16, done. Counting objects: 100% (16/16), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing objects: 100% (9/9), done. Writing objects: 100% (9/9), 1.89 KiB | 646.00 KiB/s, done. Total 9 (delta 7), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 remote: GitLab: You are not allowed to create protected branches on this project. To gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab.git ! [remote rejected] jcunha/set-auto-deploy-image-to-0-17-0 -> jcunha/set-auto-deploy-image-to-0-17-0 (pre-receive hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'git@gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab.git' ``` the relevant line here is ``` remote: GitLab: You are not allowed to create protected branches on this project. ``` I would have liked to see ``` remote: GitLab: You are not allowed to create protected branches on this project (branch name "jcunha/set-auto-deploy-image-to-0-17-0" matched protected branch pattern "*auto-deploy*") ``` ### Permissions and Security <!-- What permissions are required to perform the described actions? Are they consistent with the existing permissions as documented for users, groups, and projects as appropriate? Is the proposed behavior consistent between the UI, API, and other access methods (e.g. email replies)?--> ### Documentation <!-- See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/workflow.html#for-a-product-change * Add all known Documentation Requirements in this section. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html#documentation-requirements * If this feature requires changing permissions, update the permissions document. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html --> ### Availability & Testing <!-- This section needs to be retained and filled in during the workflow planning breakdown phase of this feature proposal, if not earlier. What risks does this change pose to our availability? How might it affect the quality of the product? What additional test coverage or changes to tests will be needed? Will it require cross-browser testing? Please list the test areas (unit, integration and end-to-end) that needs to be added or updated to ensure that this feature will work as intended. Please use the list below as guidance. * Unit test changes * Integration test changes * End-to-end test change See the test engineering planning process and reach out to your counterpart Software Engineer in Test for assistance: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/test-engineering/#test-planning --> ### What does success look like, and how can we measure that? <!-- Define both the success metrics and acceptance criteria. Note that success metrics indicate the desired business outcomes, while acceptance criteria indicate when the solution is working correctly. If there is no way to measure success, link to an issue that will implement a way to measure this. --> ### What is the type of buyer? <!-- What is the buyer persona for this feature? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/buyer-persona/ In which enterprise tier should this feature go? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/pricing/#four-tiers --> ### Is this a cross-stage feature? <!-- Communicate if this change will affect multiple Stage Groups or product areas. We recommend always start with the assumption that a feature request will have an impact into another Group. Loop in the most relevant PM and Product Designer from that Group to provide strategic support to help align the Group's broader plan and vision, as well as to avoid UX and technical debt. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#cross-stage-features --> ### Links / references