ci: Fix for command without spec

[sagar-qa007]

Description

Fix for command without spec.

Fixes # https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/stability-pod-6690c4814e31602e25cab7fd/issues/gh/appsmithorg/appsmith/38352

Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.Sanity"

🔍 Cypress test results

Tip

🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
Workflow run: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/12482462821
Commit: add048b
Cypress dashboard.
Tags: @tag.Sanity
Spec:

---

Tue, 24 Dec 2024 14:11:18 UTC

Communication

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

• Yes
• No

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Enhanced flexibility in specifying test files with a new input parameter specs_to_run.
  • Default value for specs_to_run is now set to 'no_data' when not provided.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved error handling for cases where no specifications are provided, including fallback to a specified file.

• Documentation

  • Updated comments for clarity in workflow processes.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies two GitHub Actions workflow files to improve the handling of test specifications. In .github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml, a change was made to set a default 'no_data' value when no specs are provided. The .github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml workflow was enhanced with more robust logic for reading and processing test specifications, including fallback mechanisms and improved logging.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml	Updated specs_to_run output to default to 'no_data' instead of an empty string
.github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml	Added specs_to_run input parameter, improved spec retrieval logic with fallback to limited-tests.txt and enhanced debug logging

Possibly related PRs

• test: Testing pipeline with build yaml and run_count #35524: Modifies the same workflow file, adding specs_to_run input parameter
• Fix: Fix for GHSL-2024-277 #36836: Updates workflow with run_count input parameter
• ci: Added ci option for snapshot #38261: Introduces new outputs in build-client-server-count.yml
• ci: Minor update for edge case #38295: Refines specs_to_run handling and adds run_count input

Suggested Labels

bug, ok-to-test, CI

Suggested Reviewers

• sharat87
• ApekshaBhosale

Poem

🤖 Workflows dance with specs so bright,
No data? Fear not, we'll set it right!
From empty strings to 'no_data' clear,
CI pipelines now have no fear!
Specs will run, or gracefully rest 🚀

---

🪧 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @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: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

.github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml (1)

51-58: LGTM with minor formatting fix.

The implementation for handling the specs_to_run argument is clean and consistent with other argument handling in the file.

Remove the trailing space on line 51.

🧰 Tools

🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

[error] 51-51: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

.github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml (1)

144-195: LGTM with suggested improvements.

The implementation provides robust error handling and clear logging for spec retrieval. Consider the following improvements:

1. Quote variables to prevent word splitting:

-if [[ -z "$specs_to_run" || "$specs_to_run" == "no_data" ]]; then
+if [[ -z "${specs_to_run}" || "${specs_to_run}" == "no_data" ]]; then

2. Remove trailing spaces on lines 151 and 195.

3. Consider using an array to store specs instead of string concatenation:

-specs_to_run="$specs_to_run,$line"
+specs_array+=("$line")
+specs_to_run=$(IFS=,; echo "${specs_array[*]}")

🧰 Tools

🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)

146-146: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:48:38: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting

(shellcheck)

🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

[error] 151-151: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

---

[error] 195-195: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c0d393a and add048b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• .github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml (2 hunks)
• .github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml (3 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

.github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml

[error] 51-51: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

.github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml

[error] 151-151: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

---

[error] 195-195: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)

.github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml

146-146: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:48:38: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting

(shellcheck)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.github/workflows/build-client-server-count.yml (1)

118-118: LGTM!

The PR comment body has been simplified to show only essential information.

.github/workflows/ci-test-limited-with-count.yml (1)

31-31: LGTM!

The specs_to_run parameter is consistently defined for both workflow triggers with appropriate defaults and descriptions.

Also applies to: 57-58

[NandanAnantharamu]

Lgtm