chore(ci): fixing the docker build i broke #112
Conversation
WalkthroughThe Changes
Tip New Features and ImprovementsReview SettingsIntroduced new personality profiles for code reviews. Users can now select between "Chill" and "Assertive" review tones to tailor feedback styles according to their preferences. The "Assertive" profile posts more comments and nitpicks the code more aggressively, while the "Chill" profile is more relaxed and posts fewer comments. AST-based InstructionsCodeRabbit offers customizing reviews based on the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) pattern matching. Read more about AST-based instructions in the documentation. Community-driven AST-based RulesWe are kicking off a community-driven initiative to create and share AST-based rules. Users can now contribute their AST-based rules to detect security vulnerabilities, code smells, and anti-patterns. Please see the ast-grep-essentials repository for more information. New Static Analysis ToolsWe are continually expanding our support for static analysis tools. We have added support for Tone SettingsUsers can now customize CodeRabbit to review code in the style of their favorite characters or personalities. Here are some of our favorite examples:
Revamped Settings PageWe have redesigned the settings page for a more intuitive layout, enabling users to find and adjust settings quickly. This change was long overdue; it not only improves the user experience but also allows our development team to add more settings in the future with ease. Going forward, the changes to Miscellaneous
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? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/docker.yml (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (3)
.github/workflows/docker.yml (3)
12-12: Renaming the job todocker-buildaligns better with its functionality.
15-21: Adding steps to fetch tags and set environment variables is a good practice for dynamic Docker tagging.
37-37: The conditional logic for pushing images only on push events is a secure practice to prevent unintended pushes during pull requests.Also applies to: 45-45
| - name: Build and push (tag) | ||
| id: docker_build_tag | ||
| if: startsWith(github.ref, 'refs/tags/v') | ||
| uses: docker/build-push-action@v2 | ||
| with: | ||
| platforms: linux/amd64,linux/arm64 | ||
| push: true | ||
| push: ${{ if github.event_name == 'push', 'true', 'false' }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic to tag the Docker image with the latest tag only when the current tag matches the latest tag is clever but could be error-prone. Consider adding a comment explaining this logic for future maintainers.
+ # Ensure that the 'latest' tag is only used when the current tag is the most recentCommittable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| push: ${{ if github.event_name == 'push', 'true', 'false' }} | |
| # Ensure that the 'latest' tag is only used when the current tag is the most recent | |
| push: ${{ if github.event_name == 'push', 'true', 'false' }} |
| pull_request: | ||
| branches: | ||
| - main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
The pull_request trigger in the workflow appears unnecessary because the steps for building and pushing Docker images are conditional on the branch being main or a tag starting with v. These conditions indicate that the workflow is intended for pushes to the main branch or tags, not for pull requests.
- The
pull_requesttrigger can be removed to avoid unnecessary workflow runs.
Analysis chain
Ensure that the pull_request trigger is necessary for this workflow.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify if the pull_request trigger is used elsewhere in the workflow.
# Test: Search for 'pull_request' in the workflow file. Expect: Only one occurrence.
rg --type yaml 'pull_request' .github/workflows/docker.yml | wc -l
Length of output: 68
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Extract jobs and steps from the workflow file to understand the context of the `pull_request` trigger.
# Extract the jobs section from the workflow file.
awk '/jobs:/,/^[^ ]/' .github/workflows/docker.yml
Length of output: 58
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Extract the entire jobs section from the workflow file to understand the context of the `pull_request` trigger.
# Extract the jobs section from the workflow file, including all nested steps.
awk '/jobs:/,0' .github/workflows/docker.yml
Length of output: 1543
Summary by CodeRabbit