Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ISSUE #1323]🔨Update Github Actions CI #1327

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

Conversation

rust-learn-now
Copy link
Contributor

@rust-learn-now rust-learn-now commented Nov 26, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1323

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated GitHub token for authentication in milestone association workflows for issues and pull requests.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies two GitHub workflow files to update the environment variable used for the GitHub token. The token has been changed from secrets.BOT_TOKEN to secrets.BOT_TOKEN_1 in both .github/workflows/associate_milestone_issue.yml and .github/workflows/associate_milestone_pr.yml. This adjustment affects the authentication mechanism for GitHub API calls while maintaining the existing logic and error handling related to milestone association.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
.github/workflows/associate_milestone_issue.yml Updated GitHub token from secrets.BOT_TOKEN to secrets.BOT_TOKEN_1.
.github/workflows/associate_milestone_pr.yml Updated GitHub token from ${{ secrets.BOT_TOKEN }} to ${{ secrets.BOT_TOKEN_1 }}.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Update GitHub Actions CI (Issue #1323)

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

enhancement, approved, auto merge

Suggested reviewers

  • TeslaRustor
  • SpaceXCN

🐰 In the land of code so bright,
A token change brings new delight.
With workflows set to run and play,
Milestones now find their way!
So hop along, let's code and cheer,
For updates made, the path is clear! 🌟

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@rust-learn-now has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 8 minutes and 16 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 604f5c4 and 0f7e241.


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@rust-learn-now 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot added AI review first Ai review pr first ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR labels Nov 26, 2024
@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot added this to the v0.4.0 milestone Nov 26, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 19.82%. Comparing base (2f2876e) to head (0f7e241).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1327   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   19.82%   19.82%           
=======================================
  Files         434      434           
  Lines       54530    54530           
=======================================
  Hits        10810    10810           
  Misses      43720    43720           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
.github/workflows/automerge.yml (2)

Line range hint 27-33: Review Auto-merge Security Configuration

The current configuration allows merging of forks with only one approval, which combined with the PAT token change could pose security risks:

  1. MERGE_FORKS: "true" allows merging external contributions
  2. MERGE_REQUIRED_APPROVALS: "1" might be too permissive
  3. No explicit checks for required status checks or branch protection

Consider:

  1. Increasing the required approvals for external contributions
  2. Adding explicit checks for required status checks
  3. Adding branch protection verification
  4. Adding conditions based on the PR author's association with the repository

Would you like assistance in implementing these security enhancements?


27-27: Document Token Change in Repository

The switch from BOT_TOKEN to PAT should be documented for future maintainers.

Consider:

  1. Adding a comment in the workflow explaining the token change
  2. Updating security documentation to reflect the new token usage
  3. Documenting the required PAT permissions

Would you like help creating this documentation?

.github/workflows/remove-label-on-approve.yml (1)

Line range hint 21-52: Enhance error handling and logging

While the label management logic is sound, consider these improvements:

 script: |
+            // Log the PR number and action being taken
+            console.log(`Processing PR #${context.payload.pull_request.number}`);
+
             const labelsToRemove = ['waiting-review','ready to review']; // Labels to remove
             
             // Get repository and PR context information
             const { owner, repo } = context.repo;
             const issue_number = context.payload.pull_request.number;
             
             // Get all labels on the current PR
-            const { data: labels } = await github.rest.issues.listLabelsOnIssue({
-              owner,
-              repo,
-              issue_number,
-            });
+            try {
+              const { data: labels } = await github.rest.issues.listLabelsOnIssue({
+                owner,
+                repo,
+                issue_number,
+              });
             
-            // Filter the labels that exist on the PR and are in the labelsToRemove list
-            const existingLabelsToRemove = labels
-              .filter(label => labelsToRemove.includes(label.name))
-              .map(label => label.name);
+              // Filter the labels that exist on the PR and are in the labelsToRemove list
+              const existingLabelsToRemove = labels
+                .filter(label => labelsToRemove.includes(label.name))
+                .map(label => label.name);
             
-            // Remove each label
-            for (const label of existingLabelsToRemove) {
-              await github.rest.issues.removeLabel({
-                owner,
-                repo,
-                issue_number,
-                name: label,
-              });
-              console.log(`Label '${label}' has been removed.`);
-            }
+              // Remove each label
+              for (const label of existingLabelsToRemove) {
+                try {
+                  await github.rest.issues.removeLabel({
+                    owner,
+                    repo,
+                    issue_number,
+                    name: label,
+                  });
+                  console.log(`Label '${label}' has been removed.`);
+                } catch (error) {
+                  console.error(`Failed to remove label '${label}':`, error.message);
+                }
+              }
             
-            if (existingLabelsToRemove.length === 0) {
-              console.log('No matching labels found to remove.');
-            }
-            github.rest.issues.addLabels({
+              if (existingLabelsToRemove.length === 0) {
+                console.log('No matching labels found to remove.');
+              }
+
+              await github.rest.issues.addLabels({
                 owner,
                 repo,
                 issue_number,
                 labels: ['approved','auto merge']
               });
+              console.log("Added 'approved' and 'auto merge' labels");
+            } catch (error) {
+              console.error('Failed to process labels:', error.message);
+              throw error;
+            }
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

[error] 23-23: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

.github/workflows/sync-issue-labels.yml (2)

Line range hint 1-24: Document the authentication changes

Since this is part of a larger CI update (Issue #1323), please document:

  1. Why the switch from BOT_TOKEN to PAT was necessary
  2. The required PAT scopes and permissions
  3. Any setup steps for other contributors

Consider adding this information to:


Line range hint 2-4: Consider adding status checks

The workflow runs on PR events but doesn't report its status. Consider adding status checks to ensure visibility of the label sync process.

Add this to prevent merging if label sync fails:

jobs:
  sync-labels:
    # ... existing config ...
    steps:
      - name: Check for linked issues
        id: check-links
        run: |
          if [[ ! ${{ contains(github.event.pull_request.body, '#') }} ]]; then
            echo "::error::No linked issues found in PR description"
            exit 1
          fi
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2f2876e and 624604f.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • .github/workflows/automerge.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/remove-label-on-approve.yml (1 hunks)
  • .github/workflows/sync-issue-labels.yml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/automerge.yml (1)

27-27: ⚠️ Potential issue

Security Review Required: Verify PAT Permissions

The change from BOT_TOKEN to PAT requires careful security consideration. Personal Access Tokens (PATs) often have broader permissions than bot tokens, which could potentially increase security risks.

Let's verify the workflow's security configuration:

Please ensure:

  1. The PAT has minimal required permissions
  2. Document the rationale for using PAT instead of GITHUB_TOKEN or BOT_TOKEN
  3. Consider adding explicit permission declarations to the workflow

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ jobs:
- name: Remove multiple labels using github-script
uses: actions/github-script@v7
with:
github-token: ${{ secrets.BOT_TOKEN }}
github-token: ${{ secrets.PAT }}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codebase verification

⚠️ Potential issue

PAT usage requires security improvements and documentation

The verification reveals several security concerns with the current PAT implementation:

  1. The same PAT is used across three workflows:

    • remove-label-on-approve.yml: Label management on PR approval
    • sync-issue-labels.yml: Syncing labels from issues to PRs
    • automerge.yml: Automated PR merging
  2. Critical issues identified:

    • No explicit permissions declaration in any workflow
    • PAT is used for operations that could use GITHUB_TOKEN
    • Missing documentation about PAT scope and necessity
    • Automerge workflow using PAT with broad permissions

Recommendations:

  • Replace PAT with GITHUB_TOKEN where possible
  • Add explicit permissions blocks in workflows
  • For operations requiring PAT, document the minimum required scopes
  • Consider splitting the PAT into separate tokens with minimal scopes per workflow
🔗 Analysis chain

Document and verify PAT permissions

The change from BOT_TOKEN to PAT requires careful consideration:

  1. Ensure the PAT has minimal required permissions (only pull_request write access needed for label management)
  2. Document why PAT is preferred over BOT_TOKEN
  3. Consider using GITHUB_TOKEN if possible, as it's more secure with automatic rotation

Let's verify other workflows using this token:

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potentially overprivileged PAT usage across workflows

# Find all workflow files
echo "Checking PAT usage in workflows..."
rg -l "secrets.PAT" .github/workflows/

# Check permissions context in workflows using PAT
echo "\nChecking permissions context..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 "permissions:" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 359


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of workflows using PAT to understand the context and permissions

echo "=== Content of sync-issue-labels.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/sync-issue-labels.yml

echo -e "\n=== Content of automerge.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/automerge.yml

echo -e "\n=== Content of remove-label-on-approve.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/remove-label-on-approve.yml

# Also check if there's any documentation about tokens in README or similar files
echo -e "\n=== Checking documentation about PAT usage ==="
rg -i "PAT|token|permission" README.md || echo "No token documentation found in README.md"

Length of output: 5794

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ jobs:
- name: Sync Labels from Linked Issue
uses: actions/github-script@v7
with:
github-token: ${{ secrets.BOT_TOKEN }}
github-token: ${{ secrets.PAT }}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codebase verification

⚠️ Potential issue

Add explicit permissions to workflows using PAT

The workflows using PAT require explicit permissions declarations for security best practices. None of the workflows currently declare permissions, while performing operations that require specific GitHub token scopes:

  • sync-issue-labels.yml: Reads issues and modifies PR labels
  • remove-label-on-approve.yml: Modifies PR labels
  • automerge.yml: Merges PRs and modifies labels

Add these permission blocks to each workflow:

  1. For sync-issue-labels.yml:
permissions:
  issues: read
  pull-requests: write
  1. For remove-label-on-approve.yml:
permissions:
  pull-requests: write
  1. For automerge.yml:
permissions:
  contents: write
  pull-requests: write

This ensures the principle of least privilege and makes the required permissions explicit.

🔗 Analysis chain

Verify PAT permissions and consider security implications

The switch from BOT_TOKEN to PAT requires careful consideration:

  1. Personal Access Tokens typically have broader permissions than bot tokens
  2. The workflow only needs permissions to read issues and write pull-requests

Consider these improvements:

  1. Add explicit permissions to the job:
jobs:
  sync-labels:
    permissions:
      issues: read
      pull-requests: write
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
  1. Document the required PAT scopes in the workflow file:
# Required PAT scopes:
# - repo (for private repositories)
#   - repo:status
#   - repo_deployment
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if permissions are explicitly declared in all workflows using PAT

# Check for explicit permissions in workflow files
echo "Checking for explicit permissions declarations in workflows:"
rg -l "permissions:" .github/workflows/
echo "\nChecking PAT usage in workflows:"
rg -l "secrets.PAT" .github/workflows/

Length of output: 406


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of workflows using PAT to analyze their permissions and usage context

echo "=== sync-issue-labels.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/sync-issue-labels.yml

echo -e "\n=== remove-label-on-approve.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/remove-label-on-approve.yml

echo -e "\n=== automerge.yml ==="
cat .github/workflows/automerge.yml

Length of output: 5484

@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@rust-learn-now 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@rust-learn-now 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

@mxsm mxsm merged commit 39de1ac into mxsm:main Nov 26, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed
@rust-learn-now rust-learn-now deleted the ttt branch November 27, 2024 01:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Enhancement⚡️] Update Github Actions CI
3 participants