ci: add /poe slash command for CDK PRs and Issues
#505
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds support for a new "/poe" slash command to improve CDK PR and Issue handling while updating the dispatch workflow for broader event types.
- Updated the slash command dispatch workflow to include the "poe" command and changed the issue type from pull-request to both.
- Added a new on-demand workflow to process the Poe command on demand.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/workflows/slash_command_dispatch.yml | Modified the workflow to support a broader issue type and updated the "pr" field |
| .github/workflows/poe-command.yml | Added a new workflow for handling on-demand Poe commands |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
.github/workflows/slash_command_dispatch.yml:28
- Verify that the conditional expression for 'pr' returns the expected value in all contexts, particularly when the event is not a pull request.
pr=${{ github.event.issue.pull_request != null && github.event.issue.number || '' }}
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new GitHub Actions workflow named "On-Demand Poe Task" has been added to enable manual triggering of the Poe command processor with optional inputs for comment ID and pull request number. The existing slash command dispatch workflow was modified to remove its restriction to pull request comments, allowing it to respond to slash commands on both pull requests and issues. It also added the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub Actions
participant PoeCommandProcessor
User->>GitHub Actions: Manually triggers "On-Demand Poe Task" (with optional pr and comment-id)
GitHub Actions->>PoeCommandProcessor: Runs action with inputs (pr, comment-id)
PoeCommandProcessor-->>GitHub Actions: Processes command and returns result
sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub Actions
participant SlashCommandDispatch
User->>GitHub Actions: Posts slash command comment on PR or Issue
GitHub Actions->>SlashCommandDispatch: Processes command (supports PRs and Issues, includes 'poe' command)
SlashCommandDispatch-->>GitHub Actions: Executes corresponding workflow logic
Would you like me to help draft a more detailed step-by-step breakdown of these workflows, or does this high-level overview hit the spot for you? Wdyt? 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 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
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
.github/workflows/slash_command_dispatch.yml (2)
22-26: Extended commands list with/poe
You’ve added thepoecommand to the recognized commands—spot on! Have you updated the help text below to include/poeso users can discover it? wdyt?
9-9: Update stale comment about PR-only support
The inline comment# Only allow slash commands on pull request (not on issues)is now out of sync withissue-type: both. Would you consider updating or removing it for clarity? wdyt?.github/workflows/poe-command.yml (2)
14-17: Permissions scope seems generous
You’ve grantedcontents: writeandpull-requests: write, which covers the needs of the Poe processor, but do we need both? Could we tighten permissions to the minimum required? wdyt?
24-29: Pin the action for reproducibility?
You’re referencingaaronsteers/poe-command-processor@v1. Would you consider pinning to a specific commit SHA to avoid unexpected changes when thev1tag moves? wdyt?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/poe-command.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/slash_command_dispatch.yml(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (Fast)
- GitHub Check: SDM Docker Image Build
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/slash_command_dispatch.yml (2)
21-21: Allow commands on both issues and pull requests
You’ve switchedissue-typetoboth, which aligns with the goal of handling slash commands on issues as well as PRs—nice! wdyt?
28-28: Conditionally pass PR number
Thepr=${{ github.event.issue.pull_request != null && github.event.issue.number || '' }}expression looks correct for supplying a PR number only on pull request comments. Could we simplify to${{ github.event.pull_request.number || '' }}when running in a PR context, or would you prefer keeping it explicit? wdyt?
aaronsteers
deleted the
aj/ci--add-poe-slash-command-for-CDK-PRs-and-Issues
branch
Same as this PR but for the CDK:
/poeslash command airbyte#58622Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Improvements