Skip to content

Conversation

@Jamie-BitFlight
Copy link
Contributor

@Jamie-BitFlight Jamie-BitFlight commented Nov 24, 2024

GitHub Actions Version Updates

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

  • Chores
    • Updated GitHub Actions versions across multiple workflows for improved performance and reliability:
      • pozil/auto-assign-issue to v2.0.1
      • actions/checkout to v4.2.2 in several workflows
      • xt0rted/markdownlint-problem-matcher to v3.0.0
      • reviewdog/action-eslint to v1.32.0
      • davelosert/vitest-coverage-report-action to v2.8.0
    • Enhanced linting reporting method to use github-pr-review.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 24, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve updating the versions of several GitHub Actions across multiple workflow files. The pozil/auto-assign-issue action was upgraded from version v1.13.0 to v2.0.1, while the actions/checkout action was updated from v4.1.1 to v4.2.2 in multiple workflows. Additionally, the xt0rted/markdownlint-problem-matcher and reviewdog/action-eslint actions were updated in the linting workflow. The reporter parameter for the eslint step was also changed. The overall structure and functionality of the workflows remain unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
.github/workflows/assign.yml Updated pozil/auto-assign-issue from v1.13.0 to v2.0.1.
.github/workflows/deploy.yml Updated actions/checkout from v4.1.1 to v4.2.2.
.github/workflows/github_actions_version_updater.yml Updated actions/checkout from v4 to v4.2.2.
.github/workflows/push_code_linting.yml Updated actions/checkout from v4.1.1 to v4.2.2, xt0rted/markdownlint-problem-matcher from v2 to v3.0.0, reviewdog/action-eslint from v1.20.0 to v1.32.0, and changed reporter parameter to github-pr-review.
.github/workflows/test.yml Updated actions/checkout from v4.1.1 to v4.2.2 and davelosert/vitest-coverage-report-action from v2 to v2.8.0.

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 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 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.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage Report

Status Category Percentage Covered / Total
🔵 Lines 72.11% 2092 / 2901
🔵 Statements 72.11% 2092 / 2901
🔵 Functions 76.13% 67 / 88
🔵 Branches 82.96% 190 / 229
File CoverageNo changed files found.
Generated in workflow #112 for commit 159f06e by the Vitest Coverage Report Action

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/push_code_linting.yml (1)

40-40: Remove trailing whitespace

There are trailing spaces at the end of this line.

-        uses: ./.github/actions/setup-node
+        uses: ./.github/actions/setup-node
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.29.0-1)

[error] 40-40: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f822bc2 and 159f06e.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)
  • .github/workflows/assign.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/deploy.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/github_actions_version_updater.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/push_code_linting.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/test.yml (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
  • .github/workflows/assign.yml
  • .github/workflows/deploy.yml
  • .github/workflows/github_actions_version_updater.yml
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint (1.29.0-1)
.github/workflows/push_code_linting.yml

[error] 40-40: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

🔇 Additional comments (5)
.github/workflows/push_code_linting.yml (3)

35-35: LGTM! Latest stable version of checkout action

The update to actions/checkout@v4.2.2 aligns with the PR objectives and is currently the latest stable version.


43-44: LGTM! Latest version of markdownlint-problem-matcher

The update to xt0rted/markdownlint-problem-matcher@v3.0.0 is appropriate and matches the latest release.


Line range hint 47-51: Verify reporter configuration change impact

The update to reviewdog/action-eslint@v1.32.0 is good, but the reporter change to github-pr-review needs verification:

  1. This reporter only works on pull request events
  2. The workflow runs on both push and pull_request events

Let's verify the reporter configuration in other workflows:

Consider conditionally setting the reporter based on the event type:

reporter: ${{ github.event_name == 'pull_request' && 'github-pr-review' || 'github-check' }}
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.29.0-1)

[error] 40-40: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

.github/workflows/test.yml (2)

34-34: LGTM on checkout action update!

The update to actions/checkout@v4.2.2 aligns with the PR objectives and is the latest stable version.

Let's verify the compatibility of this version with the workflow:

✅ Verification successful

Checkout action update is compatible and consistently used across workflows

The verification shows that actions/checkout@v4.2.2 is consistently used across multiple workflows with compatible configurations:

  • All active workflows are already using v4.2.2
  • The configurations use standard parameters (ref, token, fetch-depth) that are well-supported in v4.x
  • No custom or deprecated configurations that might cause compatibility issues
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the checkout action usage and compatibility
# Check if there are any specific requirements or configurations for v4.2.2

# Search for any custom configurations of the checkout action
rg -A 5 "uses: actions/checkout@" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 2101


54-54: Verify coverage report compatibility with v2.8.0

The update to davelosert/vitest-coverage-report-action@v2.8.0 is a significant version jump that might affect coverage reporting configuration.

Let's verify the coverage reporting configuration:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the coverage configuration and vitest setup to verify compatibility.


Coverage configuration is compatible with v2.8.0

The current setup is fully compatible with davelosert/vitest-coverage-report-action@v2.8.0. The configuration matches the requirements:

  • Using V8 coverage provider
  • Generating both json-summary and json reports in the ./out directory
  • Paths in the workflow match the configuration: ./out/coverage-summary.json and ./out/coverage-final.json
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify coverage report action compatibility
# Check if the current configuration matches v2.8.0 requirements

# Search for coverage report configurations
rg -A 5 "coverage-summary.json|coverage-final.json" .github/workflows/

# Check if there are any specific requirements in the project documentation
fd -g "README*" -X cat {} 2>/dev/null

Length of output: 21551


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check vitest configuration and package.json for coverage settings
rg -g "package.json" -A 5 "vitest" .
rg -g "vitest.config*" . --files
fd -g "vitest.config*" -X cat {}

Length of output: 1760

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Nov 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants