GitHub workflow improvements #1306
Conversation
|
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new GitHub Action for retrieving image tags based on commit references or optional inputs, enhancing the workflow capabilities for image tagging. Additionally, a testing workflow for the action is established, alongside new workflows for documentation checks and Docker image publishing. These updates streamline CI/CD processes and improve the overall functionality of the repository. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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: 11
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (19)
.github/test/events/push-tag-docker.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Consider clarifying the tag format.The JSON structure is correct and minimal, which is ideal for a test event file. This file simulates a GitHub push event with a specific Docker-related tag, aligning well with the PR objectives of improving GitHub workflows and adding custom actions for image tag retrieval.
The tag format
v.docker.1.2.3appears to be intentional for your specific Docker-related versioning. However, to improve clarity and adhere more closely to common versioning practices, consider using a format likev1.2.3-dockerordocker-v1.2.3. This would make the version number more immediately recognizable while still maintaining the Docker-specific identifier.{ - "ref": "refs/tags/v.docker.1.2.3" + "ref": "refs/tags/v1.2.3-docker" }.github/test/events/push-tag-docker-nonsemver.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of this mock event payload for testing GitHub Actions workflows is a good practice and aligns with the PR objective of adding tests for custom actions and workflows. The JSON structure is valid and correctly represents a push event with a non-semantic version Docker tag.
Consider adding a comment at the top of the file to explain its purpose and usage in tests. For example:
+// Mock GitHub push event payload for testing workflows with non-semantic version Docker tags { "ref": "refs/tags/v.docker.nonsemver" }This will help other developers quickly understand the file's role in the testing process.
.github/test/events/push-tag-infra-prod.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of this test event file is a good practice for testing GitHub workflows. It aligns well with the PR objectives of improving workflows and adding tests.
Consider adding a comment at the top of the file to explain its purpose:
{ + // Test event for infrastructure production deployment tag push "ref": "refs/tags/infra-prod-anything" }This will help other developers quickly understand the file's role in testing.
.github/workflows/docs.yml (1)
19-27: Consider updating the checkout action to the latest versionThe job setup looks good overall, with a clear name and appropriate environment. However, the checkout action is using version 3, while a newer version is available.
Consider updating the checkout action to the latest version:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3 + uses: actions/checkout@v4This ensures you're using the most up-to-date features and security fixes.
.github/workflows/pr_checks.yml (1)
58-58: Approve capitalization improvementThe capitalization of the step name has been improved for consistency. This change enhances readability without affecting functionality.
.github/workflows/e2e.yml (1)
Line range hint
1-58: Overall workflow structure is good, but clarify package manager usageThe workflow is well-structured and follows GitHub Actions best practices:
- Effective use of matrix strategy for cross-platform testing
- Clear step names and appropriate action usage
- Good use of environment variables for configuration
However, there's a mix of pnpm and npm/yarn usage throughout the workflow. While this might be intentional, it could lead to confusion. Consider adding a comment explaining the reasoning behind using different package managers in various steps.
Consider adding a comment at the beginning of the workflow explaining the package manager strategy, for example:
# This workflow uses pnpm for dependency management and build steps, # but tests the CLI with both npm and pnpm to ensure compatibility..github/workflows/publish.yml (3)
17-23: LGTM: Updated paths reflect workflow restructuringThe changes to the
pushevent paths accurately reflect the workflow restructuring mentioned in the PR objectives. The inclusion of custom actions and the renaming of workflow files are now properly represented in the trigger conditions.For consistency, consider adding
.github/workflows/publish.ymlto the list of paths, as changes to this file should also trigger the workflow:- ".github/workflows/publish.yml" - ".github/workflows/typecheck.yml" - ".github/workflows/unit-tests.yml" - ".github/workflows/e2e.yml" + - ".github/workflows/publish.yml" - ".github/workflows/publish-webapp.yml" - ".github/workflows/publish-worker.yml"
60-65: LGTM: Improved modularity for webapp publishingThe renaming of the job to
publish-webappand the use of a separatepublish-webapp.ymlworkflow file improve the modularity and clarity of the publishing process. The addition of theimage_taginput aligns with the new parameterized approach.For improved readability, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this job:
publish-webapp: # Publish the Docker image for the web application needs: [typecheck, units] uses: ./.github/workflows/publish-webapp.yml secrets: inherit with: image_tag: ${{ inputs.image_tag }}
67-72: LGTM: Added separate publishing process for workerThe addition of the
publish-workerjob with its separate workflow file improves the modularity of the publishing process. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and maintains consistency with thepublish-webappjob structure.For consistency with the previous suggestion and improved readability, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this job:
publish-worker: # Publish the Docker image for the worker application needs: [typecheck, units] uses: ./.github/workflows/publish-worker.yml secrets: inherit with: image_tag: ${{ inputs.image_tag }}.github/test/README.md (3)
5-56: LGTM: Comprehensive workflow test instructionsThe "Workflow tests" section provides clear and detailed instructions for testing various scenarios, including:
- Triggering specific workflow files
- Overriding custom runners
- Simulating different events (push, pull request)
The examples and code snippets are helpful and illustrate the commands well.
Consider adding a brief explanation of the purpose of overriding custom runners (e.g., "This is necessary because...") to provide more context for users who might be unfamiliar with the concept.
58-64: Enhance the explanation of composite action testsWhile the instructions for running composite action tests are clear, this section could benefit from additional context.
Consider adding a brief explanation of what composite actions are and why they require separate testing. This would help users understand the importance of this step in the testing process. For example:
## Composite action tests Composite actions are custom actions that combine multiple steps into a single action. Testing these separately ensures that they function correctly before being used in workflows. The composite (custom) action tests can be run by triggering the `test-actions` workflow: ```bash act -W .github/test/test-actions.yml--- `66-70`: **LGTM: Useful list of helpful flags** The "Helpful flags" section provides a concise list of useful flags for the `act` command, which can enhance the testing process. To make this section even more helpful, consider adding one or two more commonly used flags, if applicable. For example, you could include flags for verbose output or for specifying a custom events file. This would provide users with a more comprehensive set of tools for their testing needs. </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>.github/workflows/release.yml (1)</summary><blockquote> `79-91`: **LGTM with suggestion: Mock publishing and version extraction** The addition of mock publishing for local testing and the step to extract the package version are excellent improvements: 1. They enhance testability of the workflow. 2. They provide better version information for subsequent steps. However, I have a suggestion for the mock publishing step: Consider using dynamic version numbers in the mock publishing step instead of hardcoded ones. This could be achieved by reading from your project's version file or using a placeholder that's more representative of your versioning scheme. For example: ```yaml - name: 🚀 PR / Publish (mock) if: ${{ env.ACT }} id: changesets run: | echo "published=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" echo "publishedPackages=[{\"name\": \"@trigger.dev/core\", \"version\": \"0.0.0-test\"}, {\"name\": \"@trigger.dev/sdk\", \"version\": \"0.0.0-test\"}]" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"This approach would make the mock data more flexible and representative of real scenarios.
Tools
actionlint
81-81: step ID "changesets" duplicates. previously defined at line:67,col:13. step ID must be unique within a job. note that step ID is case insensitive
(id)
.github/test/test-actions.yml (4)
30-54: LGTM: Good test case for null inputThe
get-image-tag-nulljob effectively tests the behavior when a null tag is provided. The structure is consistent with the previous job, which is good for maintainability.Consider adding a comment explaining why this test case is necessary, similar to the comment on line 50. For example:
- name: Run with null input tag id: get_tag uses: ./.github/actions/get-image-tag # This step tests that null input behaves the same as no input continue-on-error: true with: tag: null
73-95: LGTM: Good negative test case with failure checkThe
get-image-tag-invalid-stringjob is well-structured and effectively tests the action's behavior with an invalid input. The additional step to check for expected failure (lines 89-91) is a good practice for negative test cases.Consider adding an assertion to verify the error message. This would ensure that not only does the action fail, but it fails for the expected reason. For example:
- name: Verify error message if: steps.get_tag.outcome == 'failure' run: | if [[ "${{ steps.get_tag.outputs.error }}" != *"Invalid tag format"* ]]; then echo "Unexpected error message: ${{ steps.get_tag.outputs.error }}" exit 1 fi
131-152: LGTM: Good negative test case for invalid semverThe
get-image-tag-invalid-semverjob is well-structured and effectively tests the action's behavior with an invalid semantic versioning tag. The additional step to check for expected failure (lines 146-148) is a good practice for negative test cases.Similar to the suggestion for the
get-image-tag-invalid-stringjob, consider adding an assertion to verify the specific error message for invalid semver tags. This would ensure that the action not only fails but fails for the expected reason. For example:- name: Verify error message if: steps.get_tag.outcome == 'failure' run: | if [[ "${{ steps.get_tag.outputs.error }}" != *"Invalid semantic version"* ]]; then echo "Unexpected error message: ${{ steps.get_tag.outputs.error }}" exit 1 fi
1-152: Excellent test workflow for the custom actionThis workflow provides a comprehensive set of test cases for the
get-image-tagaction, covering both positive and negative scenarios. The consistent structure across all jobs enhances readability and maintainability. The use ofcontinue-on-error: trueensures that all tests run, providing a complete picture of the action's behavior under various conditions.The workflow aligns well with the PR objectives of adding tests for custom actions and workflows.
To further improve the workflow, consider adding a job that tests the action's behavior when the repository is in a detached HEAD state. This would ensure the action handles all possible Git reference scenarios. For example:
get-image-tag-detached-head: runs-on: ubuntu-latest continue-on-error: true steps: - name: Checkout code uses: actions/checkout@v3 with: fetch-depth: 0 - name: Checkout detached HEAD run: | git checkout $(git rev-parse HEAD~1) - name: Run in detached HEAD state id: get_tag uses: ./.github/actions/get-image-tag - name: Verify output run: | echo "${{ toJson(steps.get_tag) }}"This addition would make the test suite even more robust by covering an edge case that might occur in real-world scenarios.
docs/github-actions.mdx (2)
30-30: LGTM! Consider updating the introductory text.The update of
actions/checkoutto v4 is correct and aligns with the PR objectives. Bothcheckoutandsetup-nodeactions are now using their latest versions.Consider updating the introductory text of this document to mention that the examples use the latest versions of GitHub Actions. This will help readers understand that the provided examples are up-to-date.
Line range hint
1-24: Update documentation to reflect new features and changesWhile the current documentation provides a good foundation for using GitHub Actions with Trigger.dev, it doesn't reflect several new features and changes mentioned in the PR objectives. Consider updating the documentation to include the following:
- Introduce the custom action for retrieving image tags based on Git reference or custom input.
- Explain how to use the new native concurrency control instead of the third-party action.
- Describe the feature that skips releases when only documentation changes are made.
- Include information about the new semantic versioning (semver) check.
- Mention that the publish action call after package release has been disabled.
- Highlight the improved error output feature and how it helps in troubleshooting.
- Add information about the new check for broken links in the documentation.
- Update the workflow file names to reflect the changes:
publish-dockertopublish-webapp, andpublish-infratopublish-worker.Adding these details will ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the current state of the GitHub workflow improvements and provides users with the most up-to-date information.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (24)
- .github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/test/README.md (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-main.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-build.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-docker-nonsemver.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-docker.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-infra-prod.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-infra-test.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag-semver.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/events/push-tag.json (1 hunks)
- .github/test/test-actions.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/docs.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/e2e.yml (3 hunks)
- .github/workflows/pr_checks.yml (2 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish-docker.yml (0 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish-infra.yml (0 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish-webapp.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish-worker.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish.yml (2 hunks)
- .github/workflows/release.yml (3 hunks)
- .github/workflows/typecheck.yml (2 hunks)
- .github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (2 hunks)
- docs/github-actions.mdx (2 hunks)
- docs/guides/frameworks/supabase-edge-functions-database-webhooks.mdx (1 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (2)
- .github/workflows/publish-docker.yml
- .github/workflows/publish-infra.yml
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- docs/guides/frameworks/supabase-edge-functions-database-webhooks.mdx
Additional context used
actionlint
.github/workflows/pr_checks.yml
34-34: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/publish-worker.yml
26-26: label "buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
35-35: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:31: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:24: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:34: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:46: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:13: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:23: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:35: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:24: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:34: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:13: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:23: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
.github/workflows/release.yml
20-20: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
81-81: step ID "changesets" duplicates. previously defined at line:67,col:13. step ID must be unique within a job. note that step ID is case insensitive
(id)
.github/workflows/typecheck.yml
8-8: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/unit-tests.yml
9-9: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
Additional comments not posted (44)
.github/test/events/push-main.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! This file enhances workflow testing.This new JSON file is a well-structured test fixture that simulates a push event to the main branch. It aligns perfectly with the PR objective of adding tests and mocking for custom actions and workflows. This will help ensure the reliability of the GitHub workflows, particularly when handling push events to the main branch.
.github/test/events/push-tag-semver.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured test fixture for semantic versioning.The JSON structure is correct and represents a valid Git reference to a semantic version tag. This file serves as a test fixture for GitHub Actions, simulating a push event with a semantic version tag (1.2.3).
This aligns well with the PR objectives, particularly:
- The implementation of a semantic versioning (semver) check.
- The addition of tests for custom actions and workflows.
The fixture will be useful for testing the behavior of workflows when a semantic version tag is pushed.
.github/test/events/push-tag.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured JSON for simulating a tag push event.The JSON structure is correct and represents a Git tag reference. This file appears to be designed for testing or mocking push events related to tagging, which aligns with the PR objective of adding tests for custom actions and workflows.
.github/test/events/push-tag-build.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! Consider documenting the purpose of this file.The JSON structure is valid and correctly represents a Git tag reference, which is suitable for mocking a tag push event in GitHub Actions workflow tests.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding a comment at the top of the file explaining its purpose and how it's used in tests.
- Ensure the tag name "build-buildtag" aligns with your project's tagging conventions or replace it with a more descriptive example if needed.
You could add a comment like this at the top of the file:
{ // This file mocks a tag push event for GitHub Actions workflow tests "ref": "refs/tags/build-buildtag" }Let's check if there are other similar test event files:
This will help us understand if this file is part of a larger set of test events and if the naming convention is consistent.
Verification successful
Verified: The tag name "build-buildtag" aligns with existing tagging conventions in the test event files.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other test event files and their contents # List all JSON files in the .github/test/events directory echo "Test event files:" fd -e json . .github/test/events # Show the contents of each file echo -e "\nContents of test event files:" fd -e json . .github/test/events -x cat -n {}Length of output: 1018
.github/test/events/push-tag-infra-test.json (1)
1-3: LGTM! This mock event file enhances workflow testing.This new JSON file
push-tag-infra-test.jsonis a valuable addition that aligns with the PR objective of adding tests and mocking for custom actions and workflows. It simulates a Git tag push event, which is crucial for testing infrastructure-related CI/CD processes.The file's content is correct and consistent with its intended purpose:
- The JSON structure is valid.
- The
refkey correctly represents a Git tag reference.- The tag name "infra-test-anything" is appropriate for testing purposes.
This mock event file will contribute to improving the reliability of your GitHub Actions workflows, particularly those related to infrastructure or worker publishing processes.
.github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (3)
12-12: LGTM: Checkout action version updatedUpdating the
actions/checkoutaction to v4 is a good practice. This ensures you're using the latest features and security updates.
30-30: LGTM: Step name improvedAdding the 🧪 emoji to the "Run Unit Tests" step name improves readability and consistency with other step names in the workflow.
9-9: Verify the custom runner labelThe job is set to run on a custom runner labeled "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204". While this might be intentional for your setup, it's worth verifying that this custom runner exists and is the intended environment for running unit tests.
If this is a custom self-hosted runner, ensure it's properly configured. If not, consider using a standard GitHub-hosted runner (e.g.,
ubuntu-latest).To verify the available runners in your repository, you can run the following GitHub CLI command:
Replace
{owner}and{repo}with your repository details.Tools
actionlint
9-9: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/typecheck.yml (4)
12-12: LGTM: Updated checkout action to v4This update aligns with the PR objective of updating all actions to their latest versions. It's a good practice for maintaining security and accessing the latest features.
2-2: LGTM: Improved formattingThe addition of blank lines enhances the readability of the workflow file without affecting its functionality. This change aligns with the PR objective of improving the workflow files.
Also applies to: 35-35
8-8: Verify the custom runner labelThe workflow uses a custom runner label
buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204. While custom labels are supported, please ensure that this runner is correctly set up in your GitHub Actions environment.Could you confirm that this custom runner is intentional and properly configured? If it's a typo or if a standard GitHub-hosted runner should be used instead, please update accordingly.
Tools
actionlint
8-8: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
Line range hint
1-38: LGTM: Solid workflow structure maintainedThe overall structure of the workflow remains unchanged and follows good practices:
- It's set up as a reusable workflow (triggered on
workflow_call).- It properly sets up the environment with pnpm and Node.js.
- It includes necessary steps like dependency installation, Prisma client generation, type checking, and export checking.
This comprehensive structure ensures thorough TypeScript checking, which is crucial for maintaining code quality.
Tools
actionlint
8-8: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/docs.yml (3)
1-10: LGTM: Well-defined workflow name and trigger eventsThe workflow name is clear and the trigger events are appropriately set up. Limiting the workflow to run only when changes are made in the "docs/**" directory is an efficient approach.
12-14: LGTM: Effective use of native concurrency controlThe concurrency configuration is well-implemented, aligning with the PR objective of utilizing native concurrency control. This setup ensures efficient use of resources by cancelling outdated workflow runs.
16-17: LGTM: Appropriate permissions settingsThe workflow is correctly configured with minimal necessary permissions, adhering to the principle of least privilege. This is a good security practice for GitHub Actions workflows.
.github/workflows/pr_checks.yml (2)
33-33: LGTM: Simplified conditional statementThe conditional statement for the
preview-releasejob has been simplified to a single line. This change improves readability without altering the logic or functionality.
34-34: Verify custom runner availabilityThe runner label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is not a standard GitHub-hosted runner. This suggests it might be a custom self-hosted or third-party hosted runner.
Please confirm that:
- This custom runner is correctly set up and available for this workflow.
- The team is aware of and approves the use of this custom runner.
- There's documentation explaining the setup and maintenance of this custom runner.
You can run the following script to check for other usages of this custom runner in the repository:
Verification successful
Custom runner is being used consistently
The runner label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is used in multiple workflow files, indicating it is a known custom runner.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other usages of the custom runner in the repository # Search for the custom runner usage in all workflow files rg --type yaml 'runs-on:\s*buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204' .github/workflowsLength of output: 361
Tools
actionlint
34-34: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/e2e.yml (1)
2-2: LGTM: Improved readabilityThe addition of a blank line after the workflow name enhances the readability of the YAML file and follows best practices for separating sections.
.github/workflows/publish.yml (2)
4-9: LGTM: Workflow reusability and flexibility improvedThe addition of the
workflow_calltrigger with theimage_taginput enhances the workflow's reusability and flexibility. This change allows other workflows to invoke this one with a specific image tag, which is a good practice for maintaining consistent and parameterized CI/CD processes.
Line range hint
1-72: Overall: Excellent improvements to the publishing workflowThe changes made to this workflow file significantly enhance its flexibility, reusability, and modularity. The introduction of the
workflow_calltrigger with theimage_taginput, the separation of webapp and worker publishing processes, and the updated path triggers all contribute to a more robust and maintainable CI/CD pipeline.These improvements align perfectly with the PR objectives, particularly:
- Introducing a custom action to retrieve image tags (implemented through the
image_taginput).- Renaming workflow files for clarity (
publish-webapp.ymlandpublish-worker.yml).- Improving the overall structure and organization of the GitHub workflows.
Great job on these enhancements!
.github/workflows/publish-webapp.yml (7)
1-10: LGTM: Well-structured workflow definitionThe workflow name is clear and descriptive. Using
workflow_callas the trigger allows for reusability, which is a good practice. The optionalimage_taginput provides flexibility in specifying the image tag to publish.
12-19: Please clarify the purpose of the Prisma-related environment variableThe job setup looks good overall. However, could you provide more context on why the
PRISMA_ENGINES_CHECKSUM_IGNORE_MISSINGenvironment variable is set? This might be important for maintainability and understanding potential implications.
21-27: Please explain the purpose of using Depot CLIThe repository checkout step looks good, including the recursive submodule checkout. However, could you provide more information on why Depot CLI is being used? Understanding its role in the workflow would be helpful for maintainability.
40-58: LGTM: Well-implemented tag setting and registry loginThe logic for setting image tags is well-implemented, including the special case for semver versions. The login step to GitHub Container Registry is correctly configured with appropriate secrets and credentials.
60-66: Please explain the choice of using Depot's build-push-actionThe step for building and pushing the Docker image looks good overall. Building for both amd64 and arm64 platforms is a great practice for compatibility. However, could you provide more information on why Depot's
build-push-actionis being used instead of the official Docker build-push-action? Understanding the benefits or specific requirements would be helpful.
1-66: Summary: Well-structured workflow with a few points needing clarificationOverall, this workflow is well-structured and follows good practices for building and publishing a Docker image. However, there are a few points that need clarification:
- The purpose of the
PRISMA_ENGINES_CHECKSUM_IGNORE_MISSINGenvironment variable.- The role of Depot CLI in this workflow.
- The implementation of the custom 'get-image-tag' action.
- The reasons for using Depot's
build-push-actioninstead of the official Docker action.Addressing these points will improve the maintainability and understanding of this workflow.
29-38: Review needed for the custom 'get-image-tag' actionThe step for getting the short commit hash looks good. However, we should review the custom action
./.github/actions/get-image-tagto ensure it's functioning as expected. Can you provide the code for this custom action?Verification successful
Custom 'get-image-tag' action is functioning as expected
The custom action
./.github/actions/get-image-tagcorrectly retrieves and validates the image tag based on the provided inputs and GitHub context.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the custom 'get-image-tag' action # Test: Check if the custom action file exists if [ -f ".github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml" ]; then echo "Custom action file exists." cat ".github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml" else echo "Custom action file does not exist." fiLength of output: 2508
.github/test/README.md (1)
1-3: LGTM: Clear and concise introductionThe introduction effectively explains the purpose of the directory and mentions the required tool (act) for local testing of GitHub Actions workflows and composite actions.
.github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml (2)
1-17: LGTM: Well-defined action metadataThe action metadata is clear and follows best practices. The name, description, input, and outputs are well-defined and provide a good understanding of the action's purpose and functionality.
1-77: LGTM: Well-structured action aligning with PR objectivesThe overall structure of this action is well-designed and follows best practices for GitHub Actions. It effectively fulfills its purpose of retrieving image tags based on Git references or custom inputs, as outlined in the PR objectives.
Key points:
- The action uses composite runs, enhancing reusability.
- Each step has a clear ID and description, improving readability and maintainability.
- The implementation covers various scenarios for tag generation, including custom inputs and different Git reference types.
- The addition of validity and semver checks aligns with the PR objective of implementing a semantic versioning check.
This action contributes to the overall goal of improving GitHub workflows as mentioned in the PR summary.
.github/workflows/publish-worker.yml (4)
1-15: LGTM: Workflow name and triggers are well-defined.The workflow name is clear and descriptive. The triggers are appropriate, allowing both manual invocation through workflow_call and automatic triggering on specific tag pushes. The optional input for image_tag provides flexibility in specifying the tag to be used.
17-19: LGTM: Permissions are correctly scoped.The permissions are appropriately set for the workflow's purpose. Write access to packages allows pushing Docker images, while read access to contents is sufficient for checking out the repository. This adheres to the principle of least privilege.
1-87: Overall workflow structure aligns well with PR objectives, with some potential improvements.The workflow successfully implements several key objectives mentioned in the PR summary:
- It uses up-to-date versions of actions.
- A custom action is used for retrieving image tags.
- The workflow handles different packages and implements a form of semantic versioning with the 'v3' tag.
However, there are some objectives that are not visibly implemented in this workflow:
Native concurrency control: Consider adding a
concurrencykey to the workflow to implement this feature.Skipping releases for documentation-only changes: This logic is not present in the current workflow. Consider adding a step to check for documentation-only changes and skip the build process if true.
Semver check: While there's a check for
is_semver, the actual semver validation isn't visible. Ensure this is implemented in the customget-image-tagaction.Improved error output: Consider adding more descriptive error messages or implementing a custom error handling step.
To verify the implementation of these features, you could run the following checks:
#!/bin/bash # Check for concurrency implementation grep -n "concurrency:" .github/workflows/publish-worker.yml # Check for semver validation in custom action cat .github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml # Check for improved error handling grep -n "if: failure()" .github/workflows/publish-worker.ymlImplementing these features would fully align the workflow with the stated PR objectives.
Tools
actionlint
26-26: label "buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
35-35: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:31: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:24: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:34: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:46: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:13: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:23: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
72-72: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:35: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:24: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:34: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:13: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
82-82: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:23: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
21-28: LGTM: Efficient job setup with matrix strategy.The matrix strategy for building multiple packages is an efficient approach. Enabling DOCKER_BUILDKIT is good for performance improvements.
However, there's a potential issue to address:
The job is set to run on a custom runner
buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204. This doesn't appear to be a standard GitHub-hosted runner. Please verify if this custom runner is correctly set up in your GitHub Actions environment.Verification successful
Further verification needed for custom runner usage.
The initial check did not find any other workflows using the custom runner
buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204. To ensure comprehensive verification, please run the following script to search the entire codebase for any references to this custom runner:
Verified: Custom runner
buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204is only used in this workflow.No other workflows reference this custom runner. Ensure that it is appropriately configured and available in your GitHub Actions environment.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify if the custom runner is used in other workflows rg --type yaml 'runs-on:\s*buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204' .github/workflowsLength of output: 2514
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search the entire repository for any occurrences of the custom runner rg 'buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204' .Length of output: 34
Tools
actionlint
26-26: label "buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
.github/workflows/release.yml (6)
8-8: LGTM: Ignoring documentation changes for releasesThis change aligns with the PR objective to skip releases when only documentation changes are made. It's a good practice to avoid triggering unnecessary releases for documentation updates.
13-15: LGTM: Improved concurrency controlThe addition of the
concurrencyblock is a great improvement. It:
- Implements native concurrency control, replacing the previous third-party action.
- Prevents redundant workflow runs by canceling in-progress runs when new commits are pushed.
- Optimizes CI/CD resource usage and reduces potential conflicts between runs.
This change aligns well with the PR objectives and follows GitHub Actions best practices.
21-25: LGTM: Improved job configuration and outputsThe changes in the
releasejob are beneficial:
- The simplified
ifcondition improves readability.- The new
published_package_versionoutput provides valuable information for subsequent steps or jobs.These improvements align with the PR objectives of enhancing workflow clarity and output handling.
28-28: LGTM: Updated checkout actionUpdating
actions/checkoutto v4 is a good practice. It ensures you're using the latest features and security updates provided by the action.
20-20: Address static analysis warningsThere are two static analysis warnings that need attention:
Unknown runner label:
The label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" on line 20 is not recognized by the static analysis tool. If this is a custom self-hosted runner, it's not an issue. However, if it's a typo or an outdated label, it should be corrected.To verify if this is a valid runner, please check your GitHub Actions settings or run the following command in your repository:
Replace {owner} and {repo} with your GitHub username and repository name.
Duplicate step ID:
There's a duplicate step ID "changesets" on line 81. Step IDs must be unique within a job. Please update one of the step IDs to resolve this issue. For example, you could change the ID of the mock step to "changesets-mock":
- name: 🚀 PR / Publish (mock) if: ${{ env.ACT }} id: changesets-mock run: | ...Also applies to: 81-81
Tools
actionlint
20-20: label "buildjet-8vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
93-101: LGTM with query: New publish jobThe addition of the
publishjob is a good structural improvement:
- It separates concerns by using a reusable workflow.
- It passes the package version as an input, which is a good practice for versioning.
However, I have a query:
The job is currently disabled with
if: false. Could you clarify if this is intentional and part of the PR objectives? If it's temporary, consider adding a TODO comment explaining when it will be enabled.Additionally, to verify the reusable workflow, let's check its existence:
Verification successful
Publish Workflow Verified
The
publish.ymlworkflow file exists, confirming that the reusable publish workflow is correctly set up. The addition of thepublishjob effectively separates concerns and adheres to best practices for versioning.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the existence of the publish workflow file if [ -f .github/workflows/publish.yml ]; then echo "The publish.yml workflow file exists." else echo "Warning: The publish.yml workflow file does not exist." fiLength of output: 492
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the existence of the publish workflow file if [ -f .github/workflows/publish.yml ]; then echo "The publish.yml workflow file exists." else echo "Warning: The publish.yml workflow file does not exist." fiLength of output: 127
.github/test/test-actions.yml (4)
7-28: LGTM: Well-structured job for testing default behaviorThe
get-image-tag-nonejob is well-structured and follows best practices:
- It uses
continue-on-error: true, which is appropriate for a test workflow.- Logging the current ref details (lines 14-18) is helpful for debugging.
- Running the action without an input tag (lines 20-24) effectively tests the default behavior.
- The output verification step (lines 26-28) ensures the results can be inspected.
56-71: LGTM: Effective test for tag overrideThe
get-image-tag-overridejob is well-structured and consistent with previous jobs. It effectively tests the tag override functionality by providing a specific tag value.
97-112: LGTM: Good test for prerelease semver tagsThe
get-image-tag-prereleasejob is well-structured and consistent with previous jobs. It effectively tests the action's handling of prerelease semantic versioning tags.
114-129: LGTM: Effective test for basic semver tagsThe
get-image-tag-semverjob is well-structured and consistent with previous jobs. It effectively tests the action's handling of basic semantic versioning tags.
commit: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
docs/snippets/useful-next-steps.mdx (1)
Line range hint
1-15: Consider updating URL structure for consistencyWhile the "Tasks overview" card's href has been updated, the other cards in this group still use a different URL structure (e.g., "/writing-tasks-introduction" instead of "/tasks/writing-introduction").
For consistency, consider reviewing and potentially updating the URL structure for all cards in this group. This would improve navigation coherence throughout the documentation.
docs/introduction.mdx (1)
13-13: LGTM: Tasks overview link update with a minor suggestionThe link update from
/tasks-overviewto/tasks/overviewis a good change, aligning with common URL patterns.As a minor suggestion to improve readability, consider varying the sentence structure in this list of features. For example:
- We provide an SDK and CLI for writing tasks in your existing codebase, inside [/trigger folders](/config/config-file). - Different types of tasks are available: [regular](/tasks/regular) and [scheduled](/tasks/scheduled).This change would address the repetitive sentence beginnings while maintaining the informative nature of the list.
Tools
LanguageTool
[style] ~13-~13: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...rigger folders](/config/config-file). - We provide different types of tasks: [regu...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
docs/tasks-regular.mdx (1)
10-10: Consider adding a comma for improved readabilityTo enhance the readability of the sentence, consider adding a comma after "tasks":
-Like all tasks they don't have timeouts, they should be placed inside a [/trigger folder](/config/config-file), and you [can configure them](/tasks/overview#defining-a-task). +Like all tasks, they don't have timeouts, they should be placed inside a [/trigger folder](/config/config-file), and you [can configure them](/tasks/overview#defining-a-task).This minor grammatical improvement separates two independent clauses, making the sentence structure clearer.
Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~10-~10: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...ckend or inside another task. Like all tasks they don't have timeouts, they should b...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
docs/mint.json (1)
86-89: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The new redirect entry is correctly formatted and consistent with existing entries. It's valid to have multiple source paths redirecting to the same destination, which can be useful for maintaining backwards compatibility or providing multiple access points to the same content.
For improved clarity, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of having two different source paths ("/trigger-folder" and "/trigger-config") redirecting to the same destination. This can help future maintainers understand the rationale behind this configuration. For example:
{ "source": "/trigger-folder", "destination": "/config/config-file" }, + // Both "/trigger-folder" and "/trigger-config" redirect to the same destination for backwards compatibility { "source": "/trigger-config", "destination": "/config/config-file" }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (15)
- .github/workflows/docs.yml (1 hunks)
- docs/config/config-file.mdx (2 hunks)
- docs/errors-retrying.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/examples/ffmpeg-video-processing.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/guides/dashboard/creating-a-project.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/how-it-works.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/introduction.mdx (2 hunks)
- docs/migration-defer.mdx (2 hunks)
- docs/mint.json (1 hunks)
- docs/quick-start.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/snippets/useful-next-steps.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/tasks-regular.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/tasks/scheduled.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/triggering.mdx (1 hunks)
- docs/writing-tasks-introduction.mdx (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (9)
- docs/config/config-file.mdx
- docs/examples/ffmpeg-video-processing.mdx
- docs/guides/dashboard/creating-a-project.mdx
- docs/how-it-works.mdx
- docs/migration-defer.mdx
- docs/quick-start.mdx
- docs/tasks/scheduled.mdx
- docs/triggering.mdx
- docs/writing-tasks-introduction.mdx
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/docs.yml
Additional context used
LanguageTool
docs/errors-retrying.mdx
[typographical] ~13-~13: It appears that a comma is missing.
Context: ...ying behavior for all tasks. 2. On each task you can set the retrying behavior. <No...(DURING_THAT_TIME_COMMA)
docs/introduction.mdx
[style] ~13-~13: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...rigger folders](/config/config-file). - We provide different types of tasks: [regu...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
docs/tasks-regular.mdx
[uncategorized] ~10-~10: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...ckend or inside another task. Like all tasks they don't have timeouts, they should b...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
Additional comments not posted (4)
docs/introduction.mdx (2)
12-12: LGTM: Documentation link updateThe link update from
/trigger-folderto/config/config-fileappears to be a positive change, providing a more specific and descriptive path for the SDK and CLI documentation.
12-13: Verify functionality of updated documentation linksThe link updates in this file appear to be part of a broader documentation restructuring. To ensure a smooth user experience, it would be beneficial to verify that these new links (
/config/config-fileand/tasks/overview) are functional and lead to the correct pages in the context of the entire documentation.Verification successful
Documentation links are correctly configured
All updated links in
docs/introduction.mdx(/config/config-fileand/tasks/scheduled) have been verified and point to existing documentation files. The links should function as intended, ensuring a smooth user experience.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the updated documentation links exist in the repository # Test: Check for the existence of the new documentation files echo "Checking for /config/config-file documentation:" fd --type f "config-file.mdx" docs/config echo "Checking for /tasks/overview documentation:" fd --type f "overview.mdx" docs/tasks # Note: This script checks for the existence of the files, but cannot verify the content or if they are properly linked in the navigation structure.Length of output: 333
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the updated links in docs/introduction.mdx point to the correct documentation files # Check if introduction.mdx contains the link to /config/config-file echo "Verifying link to /config/config-file in docs/introduction.mdx:" rg "\(/config/config-file\)" docs/introduction.mdx # Check if introduction.mdx contains the link to /tasks/scheduled echo "Verifying link to /tasks/scheduled in docs/introduction.mdx:" rg "\(/tasks/scheduled\)" docs/introduction.mdxLength of output: 591
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the link to /tasks/scheduled in docs/introduction.mdx points to an existing documentation file # Check if scheduled.mdx exists in docs/tasks echo "Verifying existence of docs/tasks/scheduled.mdx:" fd --type f "scheduled.mdx" docs/tasksLength of output: 170
Tools
LanguageTool
[style] ~13-~13: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...rigger folders](/config/config-file). - We provide different types of tasks: [regu...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
docs/tasks-regular.mdx (2)
10-10: LGTM: Link update improves navigationThe update to the "/trigger folder" link from
/trigger-folderto/config/config-fileappears to be a positive change. It likely reflects a reorganization of the documentation structure and provides a more specific path to the relevant information.Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~10-~10: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...ckend or inside another task. Like all tasks they don't have timeouts, they should b...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
10-10: LGTM: Improved link structure for task configurationThe update to the task configuration link from
/tasks-overview#defining-a-taskto/tasks/overview#defining-a-taskis a good improvement. It provides a more structured and intuitive path in the documentation hierarchy while maintaining the specific anchor for defining tasks.Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~10-~10: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...ckend or inside another task. Like all tasks they don't have timeouts, they should b...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (4)
- .github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/test/test-actions.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/docs.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/publish-worker.yml (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- .github/actions/get-image-tag/action.yml
- .github/test/test-actions.yml
- .github/workflows/docs.yml
Additional context used
actionlint
.github/workflows/publish-worker.yml
26-26: label "buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
35-35: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:31: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
Additional comments not posted (2)
.github/workflows/publish-worker.yml (2)
1-19: LGTM: Well-defined workflow triggers and permissions.The workflow triggers and permissions are appropriately set:
- Workflow call trigger allows for manual invocation with an optional image tag input.
- Push triggers on specific tags enable automated builds for different environments.
- Permissions are correctly limited to the minimum required for the tasks.
21-28: Verify custom runner availability.The job setup and matrix strategy look good overall:
- The matrix strategy efficiently handles multiple packages.
- Enabling DOCKER_BUILDKIT is beneficial for performance.
However, there's a potential issue:
The custom runner
buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204is not a standard GitHub-hosted runner. Ensure this runner is correctly set up in your GitHub organization or repository. If it's not available, the workflow will fail.To verify the available runners, you can run:
Replace
{owner}and{repo}with your GitHub username/organization and repository name respectively.Tools
actionlint
26-26: label "buildjet-16vcpu-ubuntu-2204" is unknown. available labels are "windows-latest", "windows-latest-8-cores", "windows-2022", "windows-2019", "ubuntu-latest", "ubuntu-latest-4-cores", "ubuntu-latest-8-cores", "ubuntu-latest-16-cores", "ubuntu-24.04", "ubuntu-22.04", "ubuntu-20.04", "macos-latest", "macos-latest-xl", "macos-latest-xlarge", "macos-latest-large", "macos-14-xl", "macos-14-xlarge", "macos-14-large", "macos-14", "macos-14.0", "macos-13-xl", "macos-13-xlarge", "macos-13-large", "macos-13", "macos-13.0", "macos-12-xl", "macos-12-xlarge", "macos-12-large", "macos-12", "macos-12.0", "macos-11", "macos-11.0", "self-hosted", "x64", "arm", "arm64", "linux", "macos", "windows". if it is a custom label for self-hosted runner, set list of labels in actionlint.yaml config file
(runner-label)
nicktrn
changed the title
publish gets called after successful package release(disabled)Workflow file renames:
publish-docker -> publish-webapppublish-infra -> publish-workerSummary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation