[duplicate-code] Duplicate custom engine step handling across workflow engines

[github-actions]

🔍 Duplicate Code Detected

Analysis of commit f093f13

Assignee: @copilot

Summary

Multiple workflow engine implementations duplicate the same logic for (1) injecting user-provided custom steps into execution pipelines and (2) rendering fallback MCP server configuration for custom tools. The repeated blocks span three or more files and stay in sync manually, raising maintenance overhead and risk of inconsistent fixes.

Duplication Details

Pattern 1: Repeated custom step injection blocks

• Severity: Medium
• Occurrences: 3
• Locations:
  • pkg/workflow/copilot_engine.go:70
  • pkg/workflow/codex_engine.go:100
  • pkg/workflow/claude_engine.go:91
• Code Sample:

  // Handle custom steps if they exist in engine config
  if workflowData.EngineConfig != nil && len(workflowData.EngineConfig.Steps) > 0 {
      for _, step := range workflowData.EngineConfig.Steps {
          stepYAML, err := e.convertStepToYAML(step)
          if err != nil {
              // Log error but continue with other steps
              continue
          }
          steps = append(steps, GitHubActionStep{stepYAML})
      }
  }

Pattern 2: Duplicated fallback MCP configuration for custom tools

• Severity: Medium
• Occurrences: 4
• Locations:
  • pkg/workflow/copilot_engine.go:255
  • pkg/workflow/claude_engine.go:619
  • pkg/workflow/codex_engine.go:256
  • pkg/workflow/custom_engine.go:175
• Code Sample:

  // Handle custom MCP tools (those with MCP-compatible type)
  if toolConfig, ok := tools[toolName].(map[string]any); ok {
      if hasMcp, _ := hasMCPConfig(toolConfig); hasMcp {
          if err := e.render<Engine>MCPConfig(yaml, toolName, toolConfig, isLast); err != nil {
              fmt.Printf("Error generating custom MCP configuration for %s: %v\n", toolName, err)
          }
      }
  }

Impact Analysis

• Maintainability: Any change to how custom steps or MCP tool rendering should behave must be edited in three to four places, increasing the chance that engines drift over time.
• Bug Risk: Fixes or enhancements (e.g., improved error handling or logging) can be applied to one engine but missed in others, causing inconsistent runtime behavior.
• Code Bloat: The repeated blocks add >40 lines across the codebase that could be centralized.

Refactoring Recommendations

1. Extract shared custom step helper

   • Create a helper (e.g., appendEngineCustomSteps(workflowData *WorkflowData, convert func(map[string]any) (string, error))) that returns []GitHubActionStep for reuse in each engine before engine-specific logic executes.
   • Estimated effort: 2-3h
   • Benefits: Single place to adjust error handling, logging, or future enhancements.

2. Unify MCP custom-tool rendering

   • Implement a shared utility that iterates mcpTools and delegates engine-specific renderers via a strategy table, while centralizing the default custom-tool block and last-item detection.
   • Estimated effort: 3-4h
   • Benefits: Reduces duplication, simplifies addition of new engines, and keeps custom-tool behavior consistent.

Implementation Checklist

• Review duplication findings
• Prioritize refactoring tasks
• Create refactoring plan
• Implement changes
• Update tests
• Verify no functionality broken

Analysis Metadata

• Analyzed Files: 4
• Detection Method: Serena semantic code analysis
• Commit: f093f13
• Analysis Date: 2025-10-16

AI generated by Duplicate Code Detector