feat: ACNA-4515 add pr-reviewer workflow #89
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ | ||||||||
| name: PR Review | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| on: | ||||||||
| pull_request: | ||||||||
| types: [opened, reopened, synchronize] | ||||||||
| issue_comment: | ||||||||
| types: [created] | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| jobs: | ||||||||
| check: | ||||||||
| # NOTE: comment body matching is exact — /review or /pr-reviewer with no trailing spaces, newlines, or mixed case | ||||||||
| # This does not fail the workflow; non-matching comments simply do not trigger the job | ||||||||
| if: | | ||||||||
| (github.event_name == 'pull_request' && github.event.pull_request.head.repo.fork == false) || | ||||||||
| (github.event_name == 'issue_comment' && github.event.issue.pull_request != null && | ||||||||
| (github.event.comment.body == '/review' || github.event.comment.body == '/pr-reviewer')) | ||||||||
| runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||||||||
| outputs: | ||||||||
| allowed: ${{ steps.gate.outputs.allowed }} | ||||||||
| pr_number: ${{ steps.gate.outputs.pr_number }} | ||||||||
| head_sha: ${{ steps.gate.outputs.head_sha }} | ||||||||
| steps: | ||||||||
| - name: Gate check | ||||||||
| id: gate | ||||||||
| run: | | ||||||||
| set -euo pipefail | ||||||||
| if [ "$EVENT_NAME" = "pull_request" ]; then | ||||||||
| echo "allowed=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| echo "pr_number=$PR_NUMBER" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| echo "head_sha=$HEAD_SHA" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| else | ||||||||
| # Fall back to "none" if user is not a collaborator (gh api returns 404) so allowed=false is output cleanly | ||||||||
| PERM=$(gh api repos/$GITHUB_REPOSITORY/collaborators/$COMMENT_USER_LOGIN/permission --jq '.permission' 2>/dev/null || echo "none") | ||||||||
| # Intentionally require admin or maintain; write collaborators are excluded to | ||||||||
| # limit who can trigger potentially expensive/sensitive review automation. | ||||||||
| if [ "$PERM" = "admin" ] || [ "$PERM" = "maintain" ]; then | ||||||||
| DATA=$(gh api repos/$GITHUB_REPOSITORY/pulls/$ISSUE_NUMBER) | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The gh api call for PR data is vulnerable to command injection if ISSUE_NUMBER is somehow tampered with. While it comes from github.event.issue.number (an integer), it's safer to quote it explicitly and validate it's numeric before use.
Suggested change
|
||||||||
| echo "allowed=true" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| echo "pr_number=$ISSUE_NUMBER" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| echo "head_sha=$(echo "$DATA" | jq -r '.head.sha')" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| else | ||||||||
| echo "allowed=false" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT | ||||||||
| fi | ||||||||
| fi | ||||||||
| env: | ||||||||
| GH_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||||||||
| EVENT_NAME: ${{ github.event_name }} | ||||||||
| PR_NUMBER: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} | ||||||||
| HEAD_SHA: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} | ||||||||
| COMMENT_USER_LOGIN: ${{ github.event.comment.user.login }} | ||||||||
| ISSUE_NUMBER: ${{ github.event.issue.number }} | ||||||||
| # GITHUB_REPOSITORY is set automatically by GitHub Actions (owner/repo) | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| review: | ||||||||
| needs: check | ||||||||
| if: needs.check.outputs.allowed == 'true' | ||||||||
| uses: adobe/aio-reusable-workflows/.github/workflows/pr-review.yml@main | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Pinning the reusable workflow to @main means any update to the upstream workflow (including breaking changes or security issues) will automatically affect this workflow. Consider pinning to a specific SHA or tag for production stability and supply chain security.
Suggested change
|
||||||||
| with: | ||||||||
| pr_number: ${{ needs.check.outputs.pr_number }} | ||||||||
| head_sha: ${{ needs.check.outputs.head_sha }} | ||||||||
| secrets: | ||||||||
| AWS_BEARER_TOKEN_BEDROCK: ${{ secrets.APP_BUILDER_AWS_BEARER_TOKEN_BEDROCK }} | ||||||||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fork check only prevents direct PR events from forks, but issue_comment events on PRs from forks are still allowed through (since the comment is on the repo itself). This is actually the correct pattern for fork PRs triggered by trusted collaborators, but it should be explicitly documented so future maintainers don't accidentally weaken the permission check thinking it's redundant.