Skip to content

test#993

Closed
jotak wants to merge 3 commits into
netobserv:mainfrom
jotak:test
Closed

test#993
jotak wants to merge 3 commits into
netobserv:mainfrom
jotak:test

Conversation

@jotak

@jotak jotak commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated CI/CD workflows with a new pull request automation job and removed the end-to-end testing workflow.

@openshift-ci

openshift-ci Bot commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign mffiedler for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review Change Stack

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds a new aaa job to the PR workflow that echoes the pull request author login. Removes the pull_request_e2e.yml workflow file, which previously ran e2e tests via make tests-e2e and uploaded logs as an artifact.

Changes

CI Workflow Changes

Layer / File(s) Summary
New aaa debug job + e2e workflow removal
.github/workflows/pull_request.yml, .github/workflows/pull_request_e2e.yml
Adds a aaa job echoing the PR author login to the PR workflow; deletes the entire e2e workflow that ran make tests-e2e and uploaded e2e-logs.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description check ⚠️ Warning No description was provided; all required template sections including Description, Dependencies, and Checklist are missing. Add a complete PR description following the template, explaining the motivation for adding the aaa job and removing the e2e workflow, and complete the QE checklist.
Title check ❓ Inconclusive The title 'test' is vague and generic, providing no meaningful information about the changeset's primary purpose or scope. Replace with a descriptive title that summarizes the main change, such as 'Add aaa job to pull request workflow' or 'Update pull request workflows'.
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Warning

Review ran into problems

🔥 Problems

Linked repositories: Your configuration references 2 linked repositories, but your current plan allows 0. Analyzed ``, skipped netobserv/netobserv-operator, `netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline`.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In @.github/workflows/build_image_pr.yml:
- Around line 19-20: The step "View PR author" directly expands the GitHub event
context variable into the run script, which is a security anti-pattern. Instead
of injecting the github.event.pull_request.user.login value directly in the run
command, add an env section to the step that sets an environment variable to the
PR author value, then reference that environment variable in the run script
using standard shell syntax.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

  • Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
  • Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 1dd32c41-150e-4b9c-b377-2f05d5aec07f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e65338a and 7167d5b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/build_image_pr.yml

Comment thread .github/workflows/build_image_pr.yml Outdated

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In @.github/workflows/pull_request.yml:
- Around line 15-16: The "View PR author" step directly expands a template in
the run command and references pull_request.user as an object instead of
extracting the login property. Move the github.event.pull_request.user.login
value to an env section with an appropriate variable name, then reference that
env variable in the run step's echo command instead of the direct template
expansion.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

  • Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
  • Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 3c1b7a29-4c3f-4d94-bb03-bae88f077598

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7167d5b and 2d3033d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request.yml
  • .github/workflows/pull_request_e2e.yml
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • .github/workflows/pull_request_e2e.yml

Comment on lines +15 to +16
- name: View PR author
run: echo "This PR is opened by ${{ github.event.pull_request.user }} ."

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Avoid direct template expansion in run; use env + .login instead.

Line 16 injects ${{ ... }} directly into shell and uses pull_request.user (object), not the login. Move the value to env and print the login safely.

Suggested fix
   aaa:
     name: aaa
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
     steps:
     - name: View PR author
-      run: echo "This PR is opened by ${{ github.event.pull_request.user }} ."
+      env:
+        PR_AUTHOR_LOGIN: ${{ github.event.pull_request.user.login }}
+      run: printf 'This PR is opened by %s.\n' "$PR_AUTHOR_LOGIN"
🧰 Tools
🪛 zizmor (1.25.2)

[error] 16-16: code injection via template expansion (template-injection): may expand into attacker-controllable code

(template-injection)

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In @.github/workflows/pull_request.yml around lines 15 - 16, The "View PR
author" step directly expands a template in the run command and references
pull_request.user as an object instead of extracting the login property. Move
the github.event.pull_request.user.login value to an env section with an
appropriate variable name, then reference that env variable in the run step's
echo command instead of the direct template expansion.

Source: Linters/SAST tools

@jotak jotak closed this Jun 19, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant