Fix committer user on bumping version #663
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes involve updates to two GitHub workflow files: Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub Actions
participant Docker
participant GCP
User->>GitHub Actions: Trigger Build
GitHub Actions->>Docker: Start PostgreSQL Service
Docker-->>GitHub Actions: Service Ready
GitHub Actions->>GitHub Actions: Run Build Jobs
GitHub Actions->>GCP: Publish Docker Images
GitHub Actions->>User: Notify Release
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
.github/workflows/build.yaml (3)
19-19: Approved: Good addition of explanatory commentThe added comment provides valuable information about the runner restrictions. It's a good practice to document such constraints.
Consider expanding the comment slightly to clarify why running PostgreSQL in a Docker container specifically prevents the use of self-hosted runners. This could help future maintainers understand the limitation better.
Line range hint
67-68: Consider enabling E2E testsThere's a commented-out step for running E2E tests. If these tests are ready, consider enabling them to improve test coverage. If they're not ready, it might be worth adding a TODO comment explaining why they're disabled and when they might be enabled.
If the E2E tests are not ready, consider adding a TODO comment like this:
# TODO: Enable E2E tests once the test suite is complete (expected: Q3 2024) # - name: Run E2E tests # run: yarn test:e2e
Line range hint
60-61: Clarify depcheck ignore pathThe
depcheckcommand ignores the "examples" path. It might be helpful to add a comment explaining why this path is ignored, or consider if it's still necessary.Consider adding a brief explanation comment:
# Ignore 'examples' directory in depcheck as it contains sample code with its own dependencies run: yarn depcheck --ignore-path="examples".github/workflows/release.yaml (1)
36-38: LGTM! Consider making the branch configurable.The addition of the
withblock to the "Checkout repository" step is a good improvement. It ensures consistency by always checking out the main branch and uses a secret for the token, which is a security best practice.Consider making the branch configurable by using an input parameter or a repository variable. This would provide more flexibility while maintaining the ability to default to the main branch. For example:
with: ref: ${{ inputs.branch || 'main' }} token: "${{ secrets.GH_RUNNER_TOKEN }}"Then add a new input parameter in the workflow dispatch section:
inputs: branch: description: 'Branch to checkout (defaults to main)' required: false default: 'main'This change would allow running the workflow on different branches when needed, while still defaulting to the main branch.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/build.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/release.yaml (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/build.yaml (1)
Line range hint
1-114: LGTM: Well-structured workflowThe overall structure of the workflow is well-organized and follows good practices:
- Efficient use of matrix strategies for testing different Node.js versions and building multiple projects.
- Conditional deployment based on PR labels provides flexibility.
- Clear separation of build, publish, and deploy stages.
However, the PR objective mentions "Fix committer user on bumping version", which is not reflected in this file. Let's verify if there are any other relevant changes:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: PR addresses the committer user fix
The commit message "Fix committer user on bumping version" is present, and changes in
.github/workflows/build.yamland.github/workflows/release.yamlreflect the intended modifications.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for changes related to version bumping or committer user # Test: Search for files with changes related to version bumping or committer user git diff --name-only ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }} ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} | xargs grep -l -E "version|committer|user" # Test: Check commit messages for mentions of version bumping or committer user git log --pretty=format:"%s" ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }}..${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} | grep -E "version|committer|user"Length of output: 337
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for changes related to version bumping or committer user # Ensure that the repository has at least two commits to compare commit_count=$(git rev-list --count HEAD) if [ "$commit_count" -lt 2 ]; then echo "Not enough commits to perform comparison." exit 0 fi # Get the latest two commit SHAs BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) # Test: Search for files with changes related to version bumping or committer user git diff --name-only "$BASE_SHA" "$HEAD_SHA" | xargs grep -ilE "version|committer|user" # Test: Check commit messages for mentions of version bumping or committer user git log --pretty=format:"%s" "$BASE_SHA".."$HEAD_SHA" | grep -Ei "version|committer|user"Length of output: 607
.github/workflows/release.yaml (2)
91-91: LGTM! Improved robustness of the npm version command.The modification to enclose the release type in quotes is a good practice. It ensures that the command will work correctly even if the release type contains spaces or special characters.
Line range hint
1-114: Verify if the PR objectives are fully met.The changes improve the workflow's robustness and security. However, it's not immediately clear how these changes address the PR objective of "Fix committer user on bumping version".
Could you please clarify how these changes fix the committer user issue? If there are any implicit changes (e.g., in how Git commits are made due to the token usage), it would be helpful to document this in the PR description or in a comment within the workflow file.
To verify if the committer user is indeed fixed, we can run the following script:
Please run this script after merging the PR and triggering the workflow to ensure the committer user is correctly set.
✅ Verification successful
Committer User Successfully Updated
The latest commit confirms that the committer user has been correctly set to
ausias-armesto <ausiasarmesto@gmail.com>during the version bumping process.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the committer user in the bump version commit # Test: Check the last commit message and its author git log -1 --pretty=format:"%an <%ae>%n%s" # Expected output should show the correct committer user and a commit message related to version bumpingLength of output: 123
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
90-90: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:3:40: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation