chore: Add version input for generate info json script

[abhvsn]

Description

PR to add version field in generate info json script. This will be used to override the version coming from the GH so that hotfixed tags should refelect the correct version instead of some random commit sha.

Fixes #Issue Number
or
Fixes Issue URL

Warning

If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid.

Automation

/ok-to-test tags=""

🔍 Cypress test results

Caution

If you modify the content in this section, you are likely to disrupt the CI result for your PR.

Communication

Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?

• Yes
• No

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request enhance the workflow configuration for the Ad-hoc Docker Image by adding three input parameters: branch, tag, and pg_tag. These parameters allow for more dynamic input handling during execution. Additionally, the generate_info_json.sh script has been updated to improve version handling logic, allowing command-line arguments for version specification and maintaining previous behavior if no arguments are provided. The script also includes validation for the version format and provides usage examples.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
.github/workflows/ad-hoc-docker-image.yml	Added input parameters: branch, tag, and pg_tag with descriptions and default values. Updated script execution to utilize these parameters.
scripts/generate_info_json.sh	Modified version handling logic to accept command-line arguments, validate version format, and retain previous behavior if no arguments are provided. Added usage examples in comments.

Possibly related PRs

• chore: Add server artifacts in ad hoc image builder #36869: This PR modifies the .github/workflows/ad-hoc-docker-image.yml file to add a new step for preparing server artifacts, which is directly related to the changes made in the main PR that also involves modifications to the same workflow file.

Suggested labels

skip-changelog, ok-to-test, Templates Product

Suggested reviewers

• sharat87

🎉 In the workflow's dance, new inputs take their chance,
With tags and branches, they enhance the glance.
The script now checks, for versions it reflects,
Command-line magic, oh what a complex!
So raise a cheer, for the changes so clear! 🎊

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

scripts/generate_info_json.sh (2)

11-19: LGTM! Consider enhancing the error message.

The version validation logic is solid. The regex pattern correctly validates semantic versions, and the error handling is appropriate.

Consider enhancing the error message to include an example:

-    echo "Invalid version format. Use v[major].[minor] or v[major].[minor].[patch]." >&2
+    echo "Invalid version format. Use v[major].[minor] or v[major].[minor].[patch] (e.g., v1.2 or v1.2.3)." >&2

---

43-46: Enhance usage documentation.

Consider adding more comprehensive examples including:

• An example of an invalid version format
• A comment explaining the default behavior when no version is provided

 # Usage 
 # ./scripts/generate_info_json.sh v0.0.1
 # ./scripts/generate_info_json.sh v0.1
-# ./scripts/generate_info_json.sh
+# ./scripts/generate_info_json.sh        # Uses latest git tag or generates SNAPSHOT version
+# ./scripts/generate_info_json.sh v1     # Invalid format - will fail

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between efc229b and 2796a33.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/ad-hoc-docker-image.yml (1 hunks)
• scripts/generate_info_json.sh (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

.github/workflows/ad-hoc-docker-image.yml (1)

Line range hint 1-24: LGTM! Well-structured workflow configuration.

The workflow is well-organized with proper job dependencies and clear input parameters.