Skip to content

Overlay: Add CI workflow to check overlay annotations #19780

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 3 commits into from
Jun 30, 2025

Conversation

kaspersv
Copy link
Contributor

@kaspersv kaspersv commented Jun 16, 2025

This PR adds an actions workflow to enforce usage of the add-overlay-annotations.py script to help maintain overlay annotations. This PR enables the script for Java.

For https://github.com/github/codeql-core/issues/4951.

@kaspersv kaspersv force-pushed the kaspersv/overlay-annotations-script-ci branch from 73bc5fb to 46ac2fd Compare June 25, 2025 08:19
Base automatically changed from kaspersv/overlay-java-annotations to main June 27, 2025 06:26
@kaspersv kaspersv marked this pull request as ready for review June 27, 2025 09:35
@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 27, 2025 09:36
@kaspersv kaspersv requested a review from a team as a code owner June 27, 2025 09:36
@kaspersv kaspersv requested a review from ginsbach June 27, 2025 09:36
Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces a new CI workflow to enforce the proper usage of overlay annotations for Java via the add-overlay-annotations.py script.

  • Added a GitHub Actions workflow to run on push and pull_request events for main and rc/* branches.
  • The workflow checks overlay annotations by invoking a Python script with a Java flag.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

.github/workflows/check-overlay-annotations.yml:17

  • The job id 'sync' is unclear in the context of checking overlay annotations. Consider renaming it to something more descriptive like 'check-overlay-annotations'.
  sync:

.github/workflows/check-overlay-annotations.yml:22

  • Verify that the script path 'config/add-overlay-annotations.py' is correct relative to the repository structure. If the script is located elsewhere, update the command to reflect the correct path.
        run: python config/add-overlay-annotations.py --check java

Copy link
Contributor

@ginsbach ginsbach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks convincing, but I don't have much experience with CI workflow definitions, so cannot judge whether it works.

@kaspersv
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ginsbach In case you are interested, you can see an example of a successful run here and a failed run here (from before main was merged in).

@ginsbach ginsbach self-requested a review June 27, 2025 09:46
Copy link
Contributor

@ginsbach ginsbach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ginsbach In case you are interested, you can see an example of a successful run here and a failed run here (from before main was merged in).

Thanks, that convinces me!

@kaspersv kaspersv removed the request for review from cklin June 27, 2025 09:55
Copy link

@navntoft navntoft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still have a limited experience with CI checks in this repo, but it looks fine AFAICT, mirroring the structure of e.g. check-query-ids.yml.

@kaspersv kaspersv merged commit 5b09ecd into main Jun 30, 2025
7 checks passed
@kaspersv kaspersv deleted the kaspersv/overlay-annotations-script-ci branch June 30, 2025 06:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants