Skip to content

feat: check environment approval #776

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

Merged
merged 37 commits into from
Apr 18, 2025

Conversation

SMoraisAnsys
Copy link
Contributor

@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys commented Apr 10, 2025

Following recent developments to add a manual approval for dependabot PR (see #751 and #774), this PR gathers the decision logic of requiring a manual approval or not.
The action allows user to specify which environment they want to use when a workflow is running because either dependabot[bot] triggered it or the workflow is associated to a PR of dependabot[bot] and pyansys-ci-bot is the one triggering the workflow. Another input is allowed to provide a "skip" environment for other cases.

Note

Currently, passing skip-manual-check-environment: '' behaves as if no environment was defined. Therefore, no comment such as the one below appear in the PR conversation.
image
That was tested in a1d92c8, see below
image

@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys requested a review from a team as a code owner April 10, 2025 08:46
@ansys-reviewer-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for opening a Pull Request. If you want to perform a review write a comment saying:

@ansys-reviewer-bot review

@github-actions github-actions bot added enhancement General improvements to existing features ci Pipelines maintenance related labels Apr 10, 2025
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys marked this pull request as draft April 10, 2025 09:30
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys self-assigned this Apr 10, 2025
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2025 12:12
Copy link
Member

@jorgepiloto jorgepiloto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding this, @SMoraisAnsys. I was wondering if we could rename this to check-environment-approval, so it fits with the rest of the check- actions.

Just requesting to add a small example before approving this.

@SMoraisAnsys
Copy link
Contributor Author

Checking CICD health with dev branch, changing back to main afterward.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the docs Issues related to documentation label Apr 14, 2025
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys changed the title feat: determine environment approval feat: check environment approval Apr 14, 2025
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys marked this pull request as ready for review April 14, 2025 13:17
@SMoraisAnsys
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR is ready

Copy link
Member

@RobPasMue RobPasMue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks for this PR @SMoraisAnsys

Copy link
Contributor

@MaxJPRey MaxJPRey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys dismissed jorgepiloto’s stale review April 16, 2025 08:10

Changes have been performed

Copy link
Member

@jorgepiloto jorgepiloto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome! Thanks for adding this, @SMoraisAnsys.

@moe-ad moe-ad mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2025
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys merged commit dc28e82 into main Apr 18, 2025
11 of 12 checks passed
@SMoraisAnsys SMoraisAnsys deleted the feat/determine-environment-approval branch April 18, 2025 10:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci Pipelines maintenance related docs Issues related to documentation enhancement General improvements to existing features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants