The config "changelog_merge_prerelease" is ignored when the changelog is modified through cz bump (--changelog)

[zimmermannJakob]

Description

The config "changelog_merge_prerelease" is ignored when the changelog is modified through cz bump (--changelog).

I think I located the issue at

commitizen/commitizen/commands/bump.py

Lines 308 to 314 in 9f3ec86

	args = {
	"unreleased_version": new_tag_version,
	"template": self.template,
	"extras": self.extras,
	"incremental": True,
	"dry_run": dry_run,
	}

, where the args do not contain changelog command specific arguments. I can provide a PR over the weekend.

Steps to reproduce

1. Create a test git repo git init
2. Create a .cz.toml config with the following content:

[tool.commitizen]
name = "cz_conventional_commits"
tag_format = "$version"
version_scheme = "semver2"
version = "0.1.0"
update_changelog_on_bump = true
changelog_merge_prerelease = true

3. git add . && cz commit
4. Create a prerelease with cz bump --prerelease rc
5. Create the final release with cz bump or cz bump --changelog

Current behavior

In step 4. the prerelease entry is created as expected, but it is not merged in step 5:
Resulting changelog:

## 0.1.1 (2025-12-05)

## 0.1.1-rc.0 (2025-12-05)

Desired behavior

The release candidate is merged with the actual release:

## 0.1.1 (2025-12-05)

### Fix
...

The desired behavior may be observed by performing cz changelog.

Screenshots

No response

Environment

Commitizen Version: 4.10.0
Python Version: 3.14.1 (main, Dec 2 2025, 12:51:37) [Clang 17.0.0 (clang-1700.4.4.1)]
Operating System: Darwin

[bearomorphism]

I can provide a PR over the weekend.

Sounds good! Thanks for locating the issue!

[bearomorphism]

We are also planning to redesign how commitizen pass options iirc

The code you located is really error prone when we are adding new options

[zimmermannJakob]

We are also planning to redesign how commitizen pass options iirc

Sounds good! Unfortunately, my initial diagnosis was incorrect, as the argument is correctly passed. I opened a Draft PR, where the issue is fixed to the best of my ability.

Before manual testing and polishing the PR, I ask that someone with a deeper understanding of the codebase takes a look and provides feedback. I will be happy to incorporate it.

[bearomorphism]

Haven't looked into the issue. I would suggest you to run a debugger if you're not sure what goes wrong

[zimmermannJakob]

Fixed in 4.11.3 through #1700
Thank you all for your help!

[bearomorphism]

Thanks!