fix: pull-request.yml to ignore actions on ignore-sensitive-files-pr and Introspection workflow #2391
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the GitHub Actions workflow in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessWe have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team. Testing Your CodePlease make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if these conditions occur:
The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
varshith257
added
the
ignore-sensitive-files-pr
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (2)
Line range hint
249-254: Enhance Target Branch Check MessageWhile the implementation correctly enforces the develop branch requirement, the error message could be more helpful.
Consider this enhanced error message:
- echo "Error: Pull request target branch must be 'develop'. Please refer PR_GUIDELINES.md" + echo "Error: Invalid target branch '${github.event.pull_request.base.ref}'" + echo "All pull requests must target the 'develop' branch as per our branching strategy." + echo "Please update your PR to target 'develop' and refer to PR_GUIDELINES.md for more information." + echo "Current source branch: ${github.event.pull_request.head.ref}" + echo "Current target branch: ${github.event.pull_request.base.ref}"
Line range hint
219-236: Improve GraphQL Inspector Job RobustnessWhile the implementation is correct, consider enhancing error handling and validation.
Consider these improvements:
- name: Clone API Repository run: | # Retrieve the complete branch name directly from the GitHub context FULL_BRANCH_NAME=${{ github.base_ref }} echo "FULL_Branch_NAME: $FULL_BRANCH_NAME" - # Clone the specified repository using the extracted branch name - git clone --branch $FULL_BRANCH_NAME https://github.com/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api && ls -a + # Clone with error handling and validation + if ! git clone --branch $FULL_BRANCH_NAME https://github.com/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api; then + echo "Failed to clone talawa-api repository" + exit 1 + fi + + # Verify schema file exists + if [ ! -f "./talawa-api/schema.graphql" ]; then + echo "schema.graphql not found in talawa-api" + exit 1 + fi
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml(1 hunks)src/GraphQl/Mutations/OrganizationMutations.ts(0 hunks)src/GraphQl/Mutations/mutations.ts(0 hunks)src/components/UserPortal/CreateDirectChat/CreateDirectChat.tsx(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- src/GraphQl/Mutations/OrganizationMutations.ts
- src/GraphQl/Mutations/mutations.ts
- src/components/UserPortal/CreateDirectChat/CreateDirectChat.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1)
83-83: Security Concern: Sensitive Files Check Bypass
Adding the ability to bypass sensitive file checks with a label could potentially weaken repository security. While this might be necessary for authorized maintainers, it should be carefully controlled.
Let's verify if there are any existing protections:
Consider implementing additional safeguards:
- Document the purpose and usage of this label in CONTRIBUTING.md
- Restrict who can add this label through branch protection rules
- Add required approvals from CODEOWNERS when this label is used
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the sensitive files check implementation and documentation.
Let me check the content of CODEOWNERS and look for any documentation about the label usage in contribution guidelines.
Sensitive Files Check Bypass Implementation is Appropriate
The implementation of the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label is well-controlled and secure:
- The CODEOWNERS file shows that
.github/directory is protected and can only be modified by @palisadoes team - The label exists with a clear description: "The contributor has a legitimate reason for editing protected files"
- The sensitive files check implementation includes comprehensive protection for critical infrastructure files
- Only repository maintainers can apply labels, providing an additional layer of control
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if branch protection rules exist for sensitive files
gh api repos/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin/branches/develop/protection --jq '.required_status_checks'
# Check if the label is already being used
gh api repos/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin/labels --jq '.[] | select(.name=="ignore-sensitive-files-pr")'
Length of output: 751
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for documentation about the label usage
rg -i "ignore-sensitive-files-pr" -A 3 -B 3
# Check the sensitive files check implementation
cat .github/workflows/pull-request.yml
# Look for CODEOWNERS file
fd "CODEOWNERS" --type f
Length of output: 9147
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check CODEOWNERS content
cat CODEOWNERS
# Check contribution guidelines for label documentation
cat CONTRIBUTING.md
cat PR_GUIDELINES.md
Length of output: 16601
varshith257
changed the title
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2391 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 98.04% 98.04% -0.01%
===========================================
Files 249 249
Lines 7197 7194 -3
Branches 2066 2069 +3
===========================================
- Hits 7056 7053 -3
Misses 131 131
Partials 10 10 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@pranshugupta54 / @AVtheking / @Doraemon012 / @gautam-divyanshu / @Atharva-Kanherkar |
varshith257
requested review from
Doraemon012,
gautam-divyanshu and
Atharva-Kanherkar
sure I'll review and tell you |
|
@palisadoes After 3 formal contributors' approvals. |
|
@gautam-divyanshu @Atharva-Kanherkar Can you see the merge pull request button enabled on your screens? Can post the image? |
No I can not. |
|
@palisadoes I think there are restrictions enabled to branch |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Issue Number:
Closes #2385
Closes #2383
Did you add tests for your changes?
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Summary
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
CREATE_CHATmutation for creating both group and direct chats with an additionalnameparameter.Bug Fixes
Refactor
CREATE_GROUP_CHATandCREATE_DIRECT_CHATmutations to streamline chat creation functionality.CREATE_CHATmutation instead of the removed direct chat mutation.