Implement Code Coverage Reporting and Deployment to GitHub Pages #2
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes introduce a configuration file for Dependabot to automate dependency updates for npm and GitHub Actions, with a specified schedule and labels. A new GitHub Actions workflow for code coverage reporting is added, triggered by specific events, and includes jobs for building and deploying coverage reports. The Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub
participant CI
User->>GitHub: Create Pull Request
GitHub->>CI: Trigger Coverage Report Workflow
CI->>CI: Checkout Code
CI->>CI: Install Dependencies
CI->>CI: Run Tests
CI->>GitHub: Upload Coverage Report
CI->>GitHub: Deploy Coverage Report
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 (
|
macalbert
added
enhancement
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
vite.config.ts (1)
10-10: Consider keeping the 'json' reporter.The current configuration with 'text' and 'html' reporters is good for human-readable output and aligns well with the goal of deploying to GitHub Pages. However, consider adding 'json' back to the array:
- reporter: ['text', 'html'], + reporter: ['text', 'html', 'json'],The JSON output can be useful for automated tools and CI/CD processes that may need to parse the coverage data programmatically.
.github/pull_request_template.md (5)
1-3: Enhance the Description section with more specific guidance.The Description section provides a good starting point, but it could be more helpful with additional prompts. Consider adding specific questions or points to address, such as:
- What is the current behavior (if this is a bug fix)?
- What is the new behavior (if this is a feature/enhancement)?
- How does this change benefit users/developers?
This will help contributors provide more comprehensive and structured descriptions.
5-7: Expand the Approach section for more comprehensive responses.While the current prompt is clear, it could elicit more detailed responses by including additional questions such as:
- What alternatives did you consider?
- Why did you choose this particular approach?
- Are there any trade-offs or potential drawbacks to this solution?
These additions will encourage contributors to provide more context about their decision-making process.
13-16: Provide more structure to the Learning section.To encourage more detailed and structured responses, consider reformatting this section as follows:
## Learning ### Research Process _Describe the steps you took to research this problem/feature._ ### Key Insights _What were the most important things you learned during your research?_ ### Resources _List any blog posts, patterns, libraries, or add-ons you found helpful:_ - [Resource 1] - [Resource 2]This structure will help contributors organize their thoughts and provide more comprehensive information about their learning process.
18-20: Revise the Blog Posts section for broader applicability.
- Consider renaming this section to "Additional Resources" or "Helpful Links" to better reflect its content.
- Add more diverse resources that could be helpful for contributors, such as:
- Official documentation links
- Style guides
- Best practices for code reviews
- Project-specific guidelines
Here's a suggested update:
## Additional Resources - [How to Pull Request](https://github.com/flexyford/pull-request) - GitHub Repo with Learning focused Pull Request Template. - [Project Contribution Guidelines](INSERT_LINK_HERE) - [Coding Style Guide](INSERT_LINK_HERE) - [Best Practices for Code Reviews](INSERT_LINK_HERE)This will provide a more comprehensive set of resources for contributors.
1-20: Overall assessment of the pull request template.The introduction of this pull request template is a positive step towards improving the quality and consistency of contributions. It covers essential aspects such as description, approach, open questions, learning, and additional resources.
However, there's room for improvement in each section to provide more structure and guidance for contributors. By implementing the suggested changes, you can create a more comprehensive and user-friendly template that will help contributors provide more detailed and valuable information in their pull requests.
Consider also adding a section for "Testing Instructions" to ensure that reviewers can easily verify the changes.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~9-~9: It appears that a hyphen is missing in the plural noun “to-dos”?
Context: ...blem?_ ## Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs - [ ] Use github checklists. When solv...(TO_DO_HYPHEN)
.github/dependabot.yml (3)
8-23: Approve npm configuration with minor formatting suggestions.The npm ecosystem configuration is well-structured and includes important details such as update schedule, labels, reviewers, and assignees. However, there are some minor indentation inconsistencies that could be addressed to improve readability.
Consider adjusting the indentation for better consistency:
- package-ecosystem: npm directory: "/" pull-request-branch-name: - separator: "/" + separator: "/" schedule: interval: monthly day: monday time: "10:00" timezone: Europe/Madrid labels: - - "npm" - - "dependencies" + - "npm" + - "dependencies" reviewers: - - macalbert + - macalbert assignees: - - macalbert + - macalbertThese changes will improve the overall consistency of the YAML structure.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[warning] 13-13: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 18-18: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 21-21: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 23-23: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
25-40: Approve github-actions configuration with minor formatting suggestions.The github-actions ecosystem configuration mirrors the npm configuration, which is excellent for consistency and maintainability. However, it has the same indentation inconsistencies that should be addressed.
Apply the same indentation fixes as suggested for the npm configuration:
- package-ecosystem: github-actions directory: "/" pull-request-branch-name: - separator: "/" + separator: "/" schedule: interval: monthly day: monday time: "10:00" timezone: Europe/Madrid labels: - - "github-actions" - - "dependencies" + - "github-actions" + - "dependencies" reviewers: - - macalbert + - macalbert assignees: - - macalbert + - macalbertThese changes will ensure consistency across both ecosystem configurations.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[warning] 30-30: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 35-35: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 38-38: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 40-40: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
1-40: Approve overall structure with minor cleanup suggestions.The Dependabot configuration file is well-structured, with consistent settings across both ecosystem configurations. This consistency in schedules, reviewers, and assignees is excellent for maintainability.
There are a couple of minor cleanup items:
Remove trailing spaces:
-version: 2 -updates: +version: 2 +updates:- - macalbert - + - macalbertConsider adding a comment to explain the purpose of the
separatorsetting in thepull-request-branch-nameconfiguration, as its purpose might not be immediately clear to all contributors.These small changes will further improve the cleanliness and clarity of the configuration file.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 7-7: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 13-13: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 18-18: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 21-21: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 23-23: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[error] 24-24: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 30-30: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 35-35: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 38-38: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 40-40: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
.github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (1)
1-16: LGTM! Consider adding push events for the main branch.The workflow name and triggers are well-defined. The use of an emoji in the name adds visibility. The pull request trigger is comprehensive, covering important events and specific paths.
Consider adding a push event trigger for the main branch to ensure tests run on direct pushes as well:
on: push: branches: - main workflow_dispatch: {} pull_request: # ... (existing configuration).github/workflows/coverage-report.yml (1)
32-39: Improve the Dependabot check script to address shellcheck warnings.The current script has some shellcheck warnings. Here's an improved version that addresses these issues:
- if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == *"dependabot"* ]]; then - echo "is_dependabot=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT - else - echo "is_dependabot=false" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT - fi + if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == *dependabot* ]]; then + echo "is_dependabot=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" + else + echo "is_dependabot=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" + fiThis change:
- Removes unnecessary quotes around the wildcard pattern.
- Adds double quotes around
$GITHUB_OUTPUTto prevent globbing and word splitting.🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
yarn.lockis excluded by!**/yarn.lock,!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- .github/dependabot.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/pull_request_template.md (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/coverage-report.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (1 hunks)
- .gitignore (0 hunks)
- package.json (2 hunks)
- vite.config.ts (1 hunks)
- vitest.config.js (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .gitignore
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- vitest.config.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint
.github/dependabot.yml
[error] 7-7: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 13-13: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 18-18: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 21-21: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 23-23: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[error] 24-24: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 30-30: wrong indentation: expected 6 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 35-35: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 38-38: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
[warning] 40-40: wrong indentation: expected 2 but found 4
(indentation)
🪛 LanguageTool
.github/pull_request_template.md
[grammar] ~9-~9: It appears that a hyphen is missing in the plural noun “to-dos”?
Context: ...blem?_ ## Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs - [ ] Use github checklists. When solv...(TO_DO_HYPHEN)
🪛 actionlint
.github/workflows/coverage-report.yml
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (19)
vite.config.ts (6)
9-9: Good choice of coverage provider.Using the V8 coverage provider is a solid decision. It's built into Node.js and generally offers better performance and accuracy compared to alternatives like Istanbul.
11-11: Appropriate reports directory specified.Setting the
reportsDirectoryto './coverage' is a good choice. It's a common convention and keeps the coverage reports separate from other project files.
12-12: Comprehensive coverage enabled withall: true.Setting
all: trueensures that coverage is collected for all files, including those without tests. This provides a more comprehensive view of the project's overall code coverage.However, be aware that this might initially lower your coverage percentage if there are many untested files. It's a good practice for identifying areas that need more testing, but make sure the team understands this potential impact on the metrics.
13-13: Improved precision in coverage targeting.Updating the
includepattern to['src/**/*.ts']is a good improvement. It specifically targets TypeScript files in the src directory, which is more precise and appropriate for a TypeScript project. This helps ensure that only relevant files are included in the coverage reports.
14-14: Appropriate exclusions for coverage reporting.The
excludeproperty is well-configured, omitting directories that shouldn't be part of the coverage report:
- 'node_modules': Third-party dependencies
- 'test': Test files
- 'coverage': The coverage report itself
- 'dist': Built/compiled files
This ensures that the coverage report focuses on your source code, providing more accurate and relevant metrics.
9-14: Well-configured coverage setup aligning with PR objectives.The changes to the Vitest configuration in
vite.config.tseffectively implement code coverage reporting as per the PR objectives. The configuration:
- Uses the efficient V8 coverage provider
- Generates human-readable reports (consider adding JSON for CI/CD processes)
- Specifies an appropriate output directory
- Ensures comprehensive coverage of all files
- Focuses on TypeScript files in the src directory
- Excludes irrelevant directories
These changes provide a solid foundation for generating and potentially deploying coverage reports to GitHub Pages. The setup follows best practices and should provide valuable insights into the project's code coverage.
.github/dependabot.yml (1)
1-6: LGTM: File header and version are correctly set up.The file starts with helpful comments explaining the purpose of Dependabot configuration, and the version is correctly set to 2, which is the current version for Dependabot configuration files.
.github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (4)
18-20: Excellent concurrency configuration!The concurrency settings are well-configured. Grouping by workflow and head ref/SHA, and canceling in-progress runs, ensures efficient use of CI resources and provides faster feedback on the latest code changes.
28-39: Environment setup is well-configured!The environment setup steps are concise and follow best practices:
- Using the latest versions of actions (checkout@v4, setup-node@v4).
- Setting up Node.js 20 with Yarn caching, which will significantly speed up the workflow.
- Clear and straightforward package installation step.
41-48: Test execution steps are good. Consider adding result uploads.The test execution steps follow a logical order (lint -> build -> test) and use Yarn commands, which is great. However, there are some potential improvements:
- Consider adding steps to upload test results and coverage reports. This will make it easier to track test performance over time and identify coverage gaps. For example:
- name: 🚴♀️ Run unit tests run: yarn test - name: 📊 Upload test results uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3 with: name: test-results path: path/to/test-results - name: 📈 Upload coverage report uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3 with: name: coverage-report path: path/to/coverage-report
- If the project uses a specific testing framework that supports test result output (like Jest), consider adding a step to publish these results directly in GitHub. This can be done using actions like
dorny/test-reporter@v1.Let's verify if the necessary test and coverage scripts are defined in the package.json:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if test and coverage scripts are defined in package.json jq '.scripts | {test, coverage}' package.jsonThis will help ensure that the
yarn testcommand is properly set up and if there's a separate coverage script that should be run.
22-26: Job setup looks good. Verify timeout sufficiency.The job configuration is well-structured. Running on the latest LTS Ubuntu and skipping draft PRs are good practices. The 30-minute timeout is generally reasonable, but it's worth verifying if it's sufficient for this specific project's needs.
To ensure the timeout is appropriate, let's check the duration of recent workflow runs:
If any of the recent runs are close to or exceeding 30 minutes, consider increasing the timeout.
package.json (2)
18-18: Approved: Improved "test" scriptThe modification of the "test" script from "npx vitest run" to "vitest run" is a good practice. This change assumes that "vitest" is available in the project's node_modules, which is the case as it's listed in the devDependencies. This approach is more efficient and consistent with best practices for running local packages.
54-54: Approved: "vitest" dependency updateThe update of the "vitest" dependency from version ^2.1.1 to ^2.1.2 is a good practice for keeping dependencies up to date. This patch version update likely includes bug fixes and minor improvements.
To ensure this update doesn't introduce any breaking changes, please verify the changelog for vitest 2.1.2. You can use the following command to check the installed version and its release notes:
✅ Verification successful
Approved: "vitest" dependency update
The update of the "vitest" dependency from version ^2.1.1 to ^2.1.2 includes several bug fixes and minor improvements, as outlined in the release notes. There are no reported breaking changes in this patch update.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check vitest version and changelog # Test: Display installed vitest version npm list vitest # Test: Fetch release notes for vitest 2.1.2 curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/vitest-dev/vitest/releases/tags/v2.1.2 | jq .bodyLength of output: 6045
.github/workflows/coverage-report.yml (6)
1-16: LGTM: Workflow name and triggers are well-defined.The workflow name is clear and descriptive. The triggers (manual dispatch, pull requests, and pushes) are appropriate for a coverage workflow. The path conditions for pull requests and pushes are well-defined, helping to avoid unnecessary workflow runs.
18-20: LGTM: Concurrency settings are optimized for efficiency.The concurrency setup is well-configured. It prevents multiple runs of the same workflow on the same ref and cancels in-progress runs, which is efficient for CI resources.
22-25: LGTM: Permissions are correctly set following the principle of least privilege.The permissions are appropriately set for the workflow's needs:
contents: readfor accessing repository contentspages: writefor deploying to GitHub Pagesid-token: writefor using OIDC tokensThis follows the principle of least privilege, granting only the necessary permissions for the workflow to function.
28-63: LGTM: build-and-test job is well-structured and comprehensive.The job includes all necessary steps for building, testing, and collecting coverage:
- Runs on ubuntu-latest and skips draft PRs
- Sets up Node.js with Yarn caching for improved performance
- Installs dependencies, runs tests, and collects coverage
- Uploads the coverage report as an artifact for deployment
The handling of Dependabot PRs is a good practice to avoid unnecessary runs.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
65-79: LGTM: deploy job is correctly configured for GitHub Pages deployment.The deploy job is well-structured:
- Runs on ubuntu-latest and depends on the build-and-test job
- Only executes on pushes to the main branch, which is appropriate for deployment
- Sets up a dedicated github-pages environment
- Uses the official actions/deploy-pages@v1 action for deployment
This setup ensures that the coverage report is only deployed after successful build and test, and only for the main branch.
1-79: Overall, this is a well-crafted GitHub Actions workflow for code coverage reporting.The workflow efficiently handles building, testing, collecting coverage, and deploying the report to GitHub Pages. It includes several best practices:
- Appropriate triggers and path filters to avoid unnecessary runs
- Concurrency settings to manage multiple workflow runs
- Least privilege principle in permission settings
- Efficient job structure with caching and artifact uploading
- Conditional execution based on PR status and branch
- Use of official GitHub Actions for critical steps
The only minor suggestion is to improve the Dependabot check script to address shellcheck warnings, but this doesn't impact the overall functionality of the workflow.
Great job on implementing this comprehensive code coverage workflow!
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
| ## Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs | ||
|
|
||
| - [ ] Use github checklists. When solved, check the box and explain the answer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct hyphenation and enhance the Open Questions section.
- Add a hyphen to "Pre-Merge TO-DOs" for correct hyphenation.
- Consider adding examples of common pre-merge tasks to guide contributors, such as:
- Update documentation
- Add/update unit tests
- Perform manual testing
- Address code review feedback
Here's a suggested update:
## Open Questions and Pre-Merge TO-DOs
- [ ] Use GitHub checklists. When solved, check the box and explain the answer.
- [ ] Update relevant documentation
- [ ] Add/update unit tests
- [ ] Perform manual testing
- [ ] Address code review feedbackThis will provide more structure and guidance for contributors.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~9-~9: It appears that a hyphen is missing in the plural noun “to-dos”?
Context: ...blem?_ ## Open Questions and Pre-Merge TODOs - [ ] Use github checklists. When solv...(TO_DO_HYPHEN)
macalbert
had a problem deploying
to
github-pages
GitHub Actions
Failure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
package.json (1)
Line range hint
1-64: Consider updating the package versionGiven the changes made to the package, especially the update to the Node.js engine requirement, it might be appropriate to update the package version number. The current version is still listed as "0.1.5".
Consider updating the version number in line 3 to reflect these changes, following semantic versioning principles.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- .github/workflows/coverage-report.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/unit-tests.yml (1 hunks)
- package.json (2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/unit-tests.yml
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint
.github/workflows/coverage-report.yml
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
package.json (4)
18-18: LGTM: Improved test script executionThe removal of
npxfrom the test script is a good change. This ensures that the project uses the specific version ofvitestinstalled in the project'snode_modules/.bindirectory, which is generally a better practice for consistency across different environments.
56-59: LGTM: Added resolutions for dependency consistencyAdding resolutions for
string-widthandstrip-ansiis a good way to ensure consistent versions across the dependency tree. This can help avoid potential conflicts or issues.Could you provide more context on why these specific resolutions were needed? Were there any conflicts or issues that prompted this addition?
61-61: LGTM: Updated Node.js engine requirementUpdating the Node.js engine requirement to
>=20.0.0is a significant change that can bring performance improvements and new features to the project.Please ensure the following:
- Document the reason for this update in the project's changelog or release notes.
- Update any CI/CD configurations to use Node.js 20 or later.
- Inform users about this change in the project's README or documentation.
To verify CI/CD configurations, run:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check CI/CD configurations for Node.js version # Test: Check GitHub Actions workflows for Node.js version. Expect: Node.js 20 or later. grep -r "node-version:" .github/workflows/
54-54: LGTM: Updated vitest to latest patch versionUpdating
vitestto version^2.1.2is good for keeping the project up-to-date with the latest bug fixes and minor improvements.To ensure there are no breaking changes or important updates, please check the changelog for vitest between versions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2:
.github/workflows/coverage-report.yml (3)
1-16: LGTM: Well-defined workflow name and triggersThe workflow name is clear and the triggers are well-defined. The path filters ensure that the workflow runs only when relevant files are changed, which is an efficient approach.
18-25: LGTM: Appropriate concurrency and permission settingsThe concurrency settings prevent redundant workflow runs, improving efficiency. The permissions are correctly set to the minimum required for the workflow tasks, adhering to the principle of least privilege.
65-78: LGTM: Well-configured deployment jobThe deploy-coverage job is well-structured and follows best practices:
- It correctly depends on the build-coverage job.
- The GitHub Pages environment is properly set up.
- Permissions are appropriately defined for the deployment task.
- The deployment action is correctly used.
This setup ensures that the coverage report will be deployed to GitHub Pages after a successful build.
| - name: Check if PR is created by Dependabot | ||
| id: dependabot-check | ||
| run: | | ||
| if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == *"dependabot"* ]]; then | ||
| echo "is_dependabot=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| else | ||
| echo "is_dependabot=false" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Check if the workflow should run | ||
| if: ${{ steps.dependabot-check.outputs.is_dependabot == 'false' }} | ||
| run: echo "The workflow is allowed to run for this PR" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve Dependabot PR handling
The current implementation checks if the PR is from Dependabot but doesn't use this information to skip the workflow for Dependabot PRs. Consider modifying the workflow to skip unnecessary steps for Dependabot PRs.
Here's a suggested improvement:
- name: Check if PR is created by Dependabot
id: dependabot-check
run: |
if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == "dependabot[bot]" ]]; then
echo "is_dependabot=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
else
echo "is_dependabot=false" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
fi
- name: Checkout
if: steps.dependabot-check.outputs.is_dependabot == 'false'
uses: actions/checkout@v4
# Apply the same condition to other steps that should be skipped for Dependabot PRsThis change will skip the checkout and subsequent steps for Dependabot PRs, saving time and resources.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
| run: | | ||
| if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == *"dependabot"* ]]; then | ||
| echo "is_dependabot=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| else | ||
| echo "is_dependabot=false" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||
| fi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Address shellcheck warnings in the Dependabot check script
The static analysis tool has identified some potential issues in the shell script:
- The comparison syntax can be improved.
- Variables should be quoted to prevent word splitting and globbing.
Here's a suggested improvement that addresses these warnings:
- name: Check if PR is created by Dependabot
id: dependabot-check
run: |
if [[ "${{ github.actor }}" == "dependabot[bot]" ]]; then
echo "is_dependabot=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
else
echo "is_dependabot=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT"
fiThis change improves the script's robustness and addresses the shellcheck warnings.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:29: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:32: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
34-34: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:4:33: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
macalbert
had a problem deploying
to
github-pages
GitHub Actions
Failure
macalbert
had a problem deploying
to
github-pages
GitHub Actions
Failure
Description
This Pull Request introduces code coverage reporting for our Node.js project and deploys the generated reports to GitHub Pages. The main changes include:
Changes Made:
envilderProject:Benefits:
Accessing the Coverage Report:
https://macalbert.github.io/envilder/
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores
package.json.