updating test action #131
updating test action #131
Conversation
|
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❌ Changes requested.
- Reviewed the entire pull request up to e8e8c4a
- Looked at
53lines of code in1files - Took 1 minute and 18 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
0additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
Workflow ID: wflow_64UdIo2OxVWiuuSE
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. We'll respond in a few minutes. Learn more here.
| steps: | ||
| - name: Approve | ||
| run: echo For security reasons, all pull requests need to be approved first before running any automated CI. | ||
|
|
||
| test-branch: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The 'test-branch' job now runs on 'pull_request_target' and depends on the 'approve' job. As mentioned earlier, 'pull_request_target' could lead to testing stale code. Also, the dependency on 'approve' job might not add any value as the 'approve' job does not perform any approval action.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the approve job just logs out - but the repo settings require an approval from an admin to run
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me!
- Performed an incremental review on 016e3c5
- Looked at
18lines of code in1files - Took 1 minute and 29 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
1. .github/workflows/test.yml:5:
- Assessed confidence :
100% - Grade:
0% - Comment:
The 'approve' job does not seem to perform any approval action. It only echoes a message. Consider implementing an actual approval mechanism if that's the intended purpose. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that a new approval step has been added. However, the 'approve' job in the workflow file does not seem to perform any approval action. It only echoes a message. This could be misleading and may not serve the intended purpose.
Workflow ID: wflow_hJeTqsBGXdvJ4n8G
Not what you expected? You can customize the content of the reviews using rules. Learn more here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me!
- Performed an incremental review on f120f14
- Looked at
9lines of code in1files - Took 1 minute and 23 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
1. README.md:104:
- Assessed confidence :
100% - Grade:
0% - Comment:
The PR description mentions updates to the GitHub Actions workflow, but the diff only shows changes to the README file. Could you please check if the correct files were included in the PR? - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions changes to the GitHub Actions workflow, but the diff only shows a change to the README file. This seems like a discrepancy. I need to comment on this to bring it to the author's attention.
Workflow ID: wflow_DfKHiSrWNImHrxH1
Not what you expected? You can customize the content of the reviews using rules. Learn more here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❌ Changes requested.
- Performed an incremental review on 318c4fa
- Looked at
22lines of code in1files - Took 1 minute and 36 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
0additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
Workflow ID: wflow_Kcr8o5cc5hJX1KLc
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. We'll respond in a few minutes. Learn more here.
.github/workflows/test.yml
Outdated
| @@ -39,10 +38,19 @@ jobs: | |||
| - run: bun run lint | |||
| - run: bun test --timeout=25000 | |||
|
|
|||
| approve: | |||
| if: github.event_name == 'pull_request' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing the trigger from 'pull_request_target' to 'pull_request' could potentially introduce a security risk. The 'pull_request_target' event runs in the context of the base repository of the pull request, rather than the forked repository. This means it has access to secrets and can write to the repository. The 'pull_request' event runs in the context of the forked repository, so if a malicious actor creates a pull request, they could potentially access secrets or write to the repository.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❌ Changes requested.
- Performed an incremental review on 53c2ec5
- Looked at
31lines of code in1files - Took 2 minutes and 30 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
1. .github/workflows/test.yml:39:
- Assessed confidence :
0% - Comment:
The change to fetch the pull request head SHA with a fetch depth of 2 in theactions/checkout@v3step is correctly reflected in the diff. This is a good practice to ensure that the correct commit is checked out when running tests in a pull request. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that theactions/checkout@v3step in thetest-branchjob has been modified to fetch pull request head SHA with fetch depth of 2. This change is correctly reflected in the diff. No issues here.
2. .github/workflows/test.yml:46:
- Assessed confidence :
0% - Comment:
The introduction of an approval step is correctly reflected in the diff. This is a good practice to ensure that pull requests are reviewed before tests are run. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that an approval step has been introduced. This is reflected in the diff, where theapprovejob has been added with a step that echoes a message about the need for approval before running any automated CI. This is a good practice to ensure that pull requests are reviewed before tests are run.
3. .github/workflows/test.yml:10:
- Assessed confidence :
0% - Comment:
The restriction of jobs to theinstructor-ai/instructor-jsrepository andrefs/heads/mainreference is correctly reflected in the diff. This is a good practice to ensure that the workflow only runs in the intended repository and branch. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that the jobs have been restricted to theinstructor-ai/instructor-jsrepository andrefs/heads/mainreference. This is reflected in the diff, where the condition for thetest-mainjob isgithub.repository == 'instructor-ai/instructor-js' && github.ref == 'refs/heads/main'. This is a good practice to ensure that the workflow only runs in the intended repository and branch.
4. .github/workflows/test.yml:7:
- Assessed confidence :
100% - Grade:
0% - Comment:
The PR description mentions that the trigger has been changed frompull_request_targettopull_request, but I don't see this change reflected in the diff. Please confirm if this is an oversight. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that the trigger has been changed frompull_request_targettopull_request, but the diff does not reflect this change. Thepull_request_targettrigger is still present in the workflow file. This could be a mistake or an oversight.
Workflow ID: wflow_92chipAjME09b2nN
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. We'll respond in a few minutes. Learn more here.
| @@ -39,10 +38,19 @@ jobs: | |||
| - run: bun run lint | |||
| - run: bun test --timeout=25000 | |||
|
|
|||
| approve: | |||
| if: github.ref != 'refs/heads/main' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The PR description mentions that the approve and test-branch jobs have been changed to trigger on pull_request instead of pull_request_target, but I don't see this change reflected in the diff. The condition for these jobs is github.ref != 'refs/heads/main', which means they will run for any branch that is not main, regardless of whether it's a pull request or not. Please confirm if this is an oversight.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me!
- Performed an incremental review on 3ec74f8
- Looked at
63lines of code in2files - Took 1 minute and 41 seconds to review
More info
- Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of70%.
1. .github/workflows/test.yml:63:
- Assessed confidence :
0% - Comment:
The change to fetch the pull request head SHA with a fetch depth of 2 in theactions/checkout@v3step is correctly implemented. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that theactions/checkout@v3step in thetest-branchjob has been modified to fetch the pull request head SHA with a fetch depth of 2. This change is correctly reflected in the diff. No issues here.
2. .github/workflows/test.yml:47:
- Assessed confidence :
50% - Comment:
The approval step has been added as mentioned in the PR description. However, it currently only echoes a message and does not implement any actual approval mechanism. If this is a placeholder for future implementation, please ignore this comment. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that an approval step has been introduced. This is correctly reflected in the diff. However, the approval step simply echoes a message and does not actually implement any approval mechanism. This could be a placeholder for future implementation, but it's worth pointing out.
3. .github/workflows/test.yml:10:
- Assessed confidence :
0% - Comment:
The restriction of jobs to theinstructor-ai/instructor-jsrepository andrefs/heads/mainreference is correctly implemented. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that the jobs have been restricted to theinstructor-ai/instructor-jsrepository andrefs/heads/mainreference. This is correctly reflected in the diff. No issues here.
4. .github/workflows/test.yml:3:
- Assessed confidence :
100% - Grade:
0% - Comment:
The PR description mentions that the trigger for the GitHub Actions workflow has been changed frompull_request_targettopull_request. However, the diff shows thatpull_request_targetis still being used. Please clarify. - Reasoning:
The PR description mentions that the trigger for the GitHub Actions workflow has been changed frompull_request_targettopull_request. However, the diff shows thatpull_request_targetis still being used. This could be a mistake or a misunderstanding. The author should clarify this.
Workflow ID: wflow_jGuk1QG1NCbW3UuY
Not what you expected? You can customize the content of the reviews using rules. Learn more here.
Summary:
This PR updates the GitHub Actions workflow, changing the trigger, modifying a step in a job, introducing an approval step, and restricting jobs to a specific repository and branch.
Key points:
/.github/workflows/test.ymlfrompull_request_targettopull_requestactions/checkout@v3step in thetest-branchjob to fetch pull request head SHA with fetch depth of 2approveandtest-branchjobs to trigger onpull_requestinstead ofpull_request_targetinstructor-ai/instructor-jsrepository andrefs/heads/mainreferenceGenerated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev