Update deep-source.yml #169
Conversation
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request updates the deep-source.yml file to remove the pull_request_target trigger and simplify the conditional logic for the DeepSource job. Flow diagram of updated GitHub Actions workflow triggersgraph TD
A[GitHub Event] --> B{Event Type?}
B -->|Push to main| C[Run DeepSource]
B -->|PR opened/synced/reopened| D{Check PR Source}
D -->|Same Repository| C
D -->|Different Repository| E[Skip DeepSource]
B -->|Workflow Dispatch| C
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
gstraccini
bot
added
the
☑️ auto-merge
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
🪧 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 (
|
github-actions
bot
added
the
size/XS
![gstraccini[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/480132?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ✅ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
Note
Korbit Pro is free for open source projects 🎉
Looking to add Korbit to your team? Get started with a free 2 week trial here
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @guibranco - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟡 Security: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
| - main | ||
| pull_request: | ||
| types: [opened, synchronize, reopened] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚨 suggestion (security): Consider documenting the security implications of removing pull_request_target
This change restricts the workflow to only run on internal PRs, which improves security but changes how external contributions are handled. It would be helpful to document this decision in the workflow file or repository documentation.
| - main | |
| pull_request: | |
| types: [opened, synchronize, reopened] | |
| - main | |
| # Security Note: This workflow intentionally only runs on internal pull requests. | |
| # We removed pull_request_target to prevent potential security risks from external contributions | |
| # running in the context of our repository. External contributors will need to fork the repo | |
| # and have their PRs reviewed before these checks run. | |
| # For more information see: https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-preventing-pwn-requests/ | |
| pull_request: | |
| types: [opened, synchronize, reopened] |
|
Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked! Scan results: |
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesCodacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more |
|
|
✅ Build PIX-BACEN-SDK-dotnet 1.1.542 completed (commit 8160767618 by @gstraccini[bot]) |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #169 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 1.33% 1.33%
=====================================
Files 17 17
Lines 75 75
=====================================
Hits 1 1
Misses 74 74 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
📑 Description
Update deep-source.yml
✅ Checks
☢️ Does this introduce a breaking change?
Summary by Sourcery
CI:
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Remove
pull_request_targetevent triggers from the DeepSource GitHub Actions workflow configuration.Why are these changes being made?
The
pull_request_targetevent trigger is removed to streamline the workflow and prevent unnecessary checks for pull requests from forks indeep-source.yml. By focusing solely on thepull_requestevent, we ensure the checks are relevant and avoid potential security risks associated with running workflows on external code from forks.Summary by CodeRabbit