Trigger new CI runs on bot-generated commits#123
Conversation
Modifies the `clang-format-fix`, `cmake-format-fix`, and `clang-tidy-fix` workflows to use a Personal Access Token (PAT) instead of the default `GITHUB_TOKEN` when committing changes. This is necessary to ensure that commits made by the `@phlexbot` automatically trigger a new run of all CI checks, which is required to satisfy branch protection rules that mandate all checks pass on the most recent commit. The workflows now expect a repository secret named `WORKFLOW_PAT` to be available.
This commit updates the `clang-format-check`, `clang-tidy-check`, `cmake-format-check`, and `coverage` workflows to ensure consistent behavior on manual triggers. The `if` conditions for the main jobs have been modified to include a bypass for the relevance-detection logic when the workflow is triggered via `workflow_dispatch` or a local `act` run. This aligns their behavior with the recently added `python-check` workflow, providing a more predictable and consistent developer experience across the entire CI suite. The `coverage.yaml` workflow was also refactored to remove its custom `act` detection logic in favor of the standardized approach.
|
Review the full CodeQL report for details. |
Is this supposed to point to a scan with the filter: - is:open branch:main
+ is:open branch:jules-maintenance-trigger-ci-on-bot-commits I'm not sure showing the code scans for the |
To be honest, I don't fully understand the way CodeQL produces alerts at all: I haven't seen an alert generated yet that isn't on the main branch. I'd suggest leaving it as-is for now until we have more data. |
This suggests that the CodeQL check is currently too opaque to be helpful. We should consider disabling the check until we understand it better—automatically generated comments that seemingly have no relevance to the PR create confusion. Granted, resolving this issue is not in scope for this PR, and a separate issue should be logged that covers it. |
|
@knoepfel Do you need me to do something specifically here before approval/merge? |
Just a request that you create a bug report that alludes to the CodeQL issue I raised above. |
2 participants
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.