Skip to content

Conversation

@alvin-r
Copy link
Contributor

@alvin-r alvin-r commented Apr 18, 2025

PR Type

  • Bug fix
  • Enhancement

Description

  • Conditionally resolve benchmarks_root in CLI.

  • Use pull_request_target for workflow triggers.

  • Add dynamic environment assignment in benchmarks job.

  • Update checkout steps with ref and repo details.


Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files
Bug fix
1 files
cli.py
Conditionally resolve benchmarks_root.                                     
+2/-1     
Enhancement
8 files
end-to-end-test-benchmark-bubblesort.yaml
Update trigger, add PR validation, and dynamic environment.
+35/-2   
end-to-end-test-bubblesort-pytest-no-git.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-test-bubblesort-unittest.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-test-coverage.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-test-futurehouse.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-test-init-optim.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-test-tracer-replay.yaml
Update checkout step with dynamic ref and repository.       
+4/-1     
end-to-end-topological-sort-test.yaml
Update checkout step and add debug environment decision. 
+4/-1     

Need help?
  • Type /help how to ... in the comments thread for any questions about PR-Agent usage.
  • Check out the documentation for more information.
  • @github-actions
    Copy link

    github-actions bot commented Apr 18, 2025

    PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

    (Review updated until commit 5a4a547)

    Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

    ⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 3 🔵🔵🔵⚪⚪
    🧪 No relevant tests
    🔒 No security concerns identified
    ⚡ Recommended focus areas for review

    Input Validation

    The new conditional for resolving benchmarks_root might benefit from additional validation. Ensure that benchmarks_root is not only provided but also non-empty to avoid potential issues with falsy values.

    if args.benchmarks_root:
        args.benchmarks_root = Path(args.benchmarks_root).resolve()
    Workflow Logic

    The added PR validation step introduces complex conditional logic for authorizing workflow changes. Review the conditions thoroughly to confirm they account for all edge cases and consider abstracting repetitive logic if possible.

    - name: 🛎️ Checkout
      uses: actions/checkout@v4
      with:
        ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.ref }}
        repository: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name }}
        fetch-depth: 0
        token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
    
    - name: Validate PR
      run: |
        # Check for any workflow changes
        if git diff --name-only "${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }}" "${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}" | grep -q "^.github/workflows/"; then
          echo "⚠️ Workflow changes detected."
    
          # Get the PR author
          AUTHOR="${{ github.event.pull_request.user.login }}"
          echo "PR Author: $AUTHOR"
    
          # Allowlist check
          if [[ "$AUTHOR" == "misrasaurabh1" || "$AUTHOR" == "KRRT7" ]]; then
            echo "✅ Authorized user ($AUTHOR). Proceeding."
          elif [[ "${{ github.event.pull_request.state }}" == "open" ]]; then
            echo "✅ PR triggered by 'pull_request_target' and is open. Assuming protection rules are in place. Proceeding."
          else
            echo "⛔ Unauthorized user ($AUTHOR) attempting to modify workflows. Exiting."
            exit 1
          fi
        else
          echo "✅ No workflow file changes detected. Proceeding."
        fi

    @github-actions
    Copy link

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    Explore these optional code suggestions:

    CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Impact
    Possible issue
    Enhance benchmarks validation

    Consider checking explicitly for both None and empty strings to avoid skipping valid
    but empty inputs.

    codeflash/cli_cmds/cli.py [170-171]

    -if args.benchmarks_root:
    +if args.benchmarks_root not in (None, ""):
         args.benchmarks_root = Path(args.benchmarks_root).resolve()
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 3

    __

    Why: The proposed change adds an explicit check that is largely redundant since Python's truthy evaluation already handles None and empty strings; furthermore, it might unintentionally change behavior if empty strings are considered valid, resulting in a marginal improvement.

    Low

    @github-actions github-actions bot added the workflow-modified This PR modifies GitHub Actions workflows label Apr 18, 2025
    @alvin-r alvin-r marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2025 19:55
    @alvin-r alvin-r merged commit 731ec66 into main Apr 18, 2025
    13 of 16 checks passed
    @github-actions
    Copy link

    Persistent review updated to latest commit 5a4a547

    @github-actions
    Copy link

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    No code suggestions found for the PR.

    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Labels

    Review effort 3/5 workflow-modified This PR modifies GitHub Actions workflows

    Projects

    None yet

    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants