Merge pull request #37 from step-security/auto-cherry-pick

chore: Cherry-picked changes from upstream

Author: Raj-StepSecurity

.nvmrc

@@ -1 +1 @@
-20.6.0
+20.19.6

README.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ There was a need for this action as currently available actions...
 
 ```yaml
 steps:
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: workflow-dispatch
     name: 'Dispatch Workflow using workflow_dispatch Method'
     with:
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ steps:
 
 ```yaml
 steps:
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: repository-dispatch
     name: 'Dispatch Workflow using repository_dispatch Method'
     with:
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ This functionality is **disabled by default**, but can be enabled with the `disc
 
 ```yaml
 steps:
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: dispatch-with-discovery
     name: "Dispatch Workflow With Discovery"
     with:
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ By default, this GitHub Action has no outputs. However, when discovery mode is *
 
 ```yaml
 steps:
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: wait-repository-dispatch
     name: 'Dispatch Using repository_dispatch Method And Wait For Run-ID'
     with:
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ types must be wrapped in **quotes** to successfully dispatch the workflow.
 
 ```yaml
 # Invalid ❌
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: workflow-dispatch
     name: 'Dispatch Using workflow_dispatch Method'
     with:
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ types must be wrapped in **quotes** to successfully dispatch the workflow.
         }
 
 # Valid 🟢
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: workflow-dispatch
     name: 'Dispatch Using workflow_dispatch Method'
     with:
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ When interacting with the GitHub REST API, it's beneficial to handle potential f
 - `time-multiple`: The factor by which the `starting-delay-ms` is multiplied for each reattempt, influencing the delay duration.
 
 ```yaml
-  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v1
+  - uses: step-security/dispatch-workflow@v2
     id: custom-backoff
     name: 'Dispatch with custom exponential backoff parameters'
     with:

dist/index.js

@@ -293,16 +293,24 @@ function workflowDispatch(distinctId) {
         if (!config.ref) {
             throw new Error(`workflow_dispatch: An input to 'ref' was not provided`);
         }
-        // https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event
-        const response = yield octokit.rest.actions.createWorkflowDispatch({
+        // GitHub released a breaking change to the createWorkflowDispatch API that resulted in a change where the returned
+        // status code changed to 200, from 204. At the time, the @octokit/types had not been updated to reflect this change.
+        //
+        // Given that we are in an interim state where the API behaviour, but the public documentation has not been updated
+        // to reflect this change, and GitHub has not yet released any updates on this topic. I can going to play the safe
+        // route and assume that the response status code could be either 200 or 204.
+        //
+        // Reference:     https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9752#discussioncomment-15295321
+        // Documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event
+        const response = (yield octokit.rest.actions.createWorkflowDispatch({
             owner: config.owner,
             repo: config.repo,
             workflow_id: config.workflow,
             ref: config.ref,
             inputs
-        });
-        if (response.status !== 204) {
-            throw new Error(`workflow_dispatch: Failed to dispatch action, expected 204 but received ${response.status}`);
+        }));
+        if (response.status !== 200 && response.status !== 204) {
+            throw new Error(`workflow_dispatch: Failed to dispatch action, expected 200 or 204 but received ${response.status}`);
         }
         core.info(`✅ Successfully dispatched workflow using workflow_dispatch method:
     repository: ${config.owner}/${config.repo}

dist/index.js.map

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "dispatch-workflow",
-  "version": "2.0.0",
+  "version": "2.0.1",
   "private": true,
   "description": "A GitHub action to dispatch a remote GitHub workflow and optionally retrieve its information",
   "main": "lib/index.js",

package-lock.json

@@ -85,7 +85,32 @@ describe('API', () => {
       init(mockActionConfig)
     })
 
-    it('should resolve after a successful dispatch', async () => {
+    // GitHub released a breaking change to the createWorkflowDispatch API that resulted in a change where the returned
+    // status code changed to 200, from 204.
+    //
+    // Given that we are in an interim state where the API behaviour, but the public documentation has not been updated
+    // to reflect this change, and GitHub has not yet released any updates on this topic. I can going to play the safe
+    // route and assume that the response status code could be either 200 or 204. I've added a test case that supports both
+    // potential status codes.
+    //
+    // Reference:     https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9752#discussioncomment-15295321
+    // Documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event
+    it('should resolve after a successful dispatch with a 200 status', async () => {
+      jest
+        .spyOn(mockOctokit.rest.actions, 'createWorkflowDispatch')
+        .mockReturnValue(
+          Promise.resolve({
+            headers: null,
+            url: '',
+            data: undefined,
+            status: 200
+          })
+        )
+
+      await workflowDispatch('')
+    })
+
+    it('should resolve after a successful dispatch with a 204 status', async () => {
       jest
         .spyOn(mockOctokit.rest.actions, 'createWorkflowDispatch')
         .mockReturnValue(
@@ -112,7 +137,7 @@ describe('API', () => {
         )
 
       await expect(workflowDispatch('')).rejects.toThrow(
-        `Failed to dispatch action, expected 204 but received ${errorStatus}`
+        `Failed to dispatch action, expected 200 or 204 but received ${errorStatus}`
       )
     })
 
@@ -126,7 +151,7 @@ describe('API', () => {
 
           return {
             data: undefined,
-            status: 204
+            status: 200
           }
         })
 
@@ -147,7 +172,7 @@ describe('API', () => {
 
           return {
             data: undefined,
-            status: 204
+            status: 200
           }
         })
 

package.json

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ import * as github from '@actions/github'
 import {getConfig, ActionConfig, DispatchMethod} from '../action'
 import {getBranchNameFromRef} from '../utils'
 import {Octokit, WorkflowRun, WorkflowRunResponse} from './api.types'
+import type {OctokitResponse} from '@octokit/types'
 
 let config: ActionConfig
 let octokit: Octokit
@@ -25,18 +26,26 @@ export async function workflowDispatch(distinctId: string): Promise<void> {
   if (!config.ref) {
     throw new Error(`workflow_dispatch: An input to 'ref' was not provided`)
   }
-  // https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event
-  const response = await octokit.rest.actions.createWorkflowDispatch({
+  // GitHub released a breaking change to the createWorkflowDispatch API that resulted in a change where the returned
+  // status code changed to 200, from 204. At the time, the @octokit/types had not been updated to reflect this change.
+  //
+  // Given that we are in an interim state where the API behaviour, but the public documentation has not been updated
+  // to reflect this change, and GitHub has not yet released any updates on this topic. I can going to play the safe
+  // route and assume that the response status code could be either 200 or 204.
+  //
+  // Reference:     https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/9752#discussioncomment-15295321
+  // Documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/actions#create-a-workflow-dispatch-event
+  const response = (await octokit.rest.actions.createWorkflowDispatch({
     owner: config.owner,
     repo: config.repo,
     workflow_id: config.workflow,
     ref: config.ref,
     inputs
-  })
+  })) as OctokitResponse<never, 204 | 200>
 
-  if (response.status !== 204) {
+  if (response.status !== 200 && response.status !== 204) {
     throw new Error(
-      `workflow_dispatch: Failed to dispatch action, expected 204 but received ${response.status}`
+      `workflow_dispatch: Failed to dispatch action, expected 200 or 204 but received ${response.status}`
     )
   }