fix: add missing package.json entry
#43
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: a1b718d The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
WalkthroughA new changeset entry was added to the Changes
Poem
🪧 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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR addresses a bug by adding a missing entry in the package.json file via an updated changeset.
- Added a new changeset file to patch the "@fake-scope/fake-pkg" package.
- Provides a commit message indicating the fix for the missing package.json entry.
Files not reviewed (1)
- package.json: Language not supported
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.changeset/swift-moles-taste.md(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.changeset/swift-moles-taste.md (1)
1-6: Changeset entry is correctly formatted.The changeset file clearly indicates a patch for the package
"@fake-scope/fake-pkg"and provides a succinct fix message regarding the missingpackage.jsonentry. Ensure that this summary remains consistent with changelog guidelines.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
size-limit report 📦
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #43 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 74.35% 74.35%
=======================================
Files 8 8
Lines 78 78
Branches 17 17
=======================================
Hits 58 58
Misses 19 19
Partials 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@coderabbitai Please point out that |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @JounQin I'll make sure to flag this in future reviews. I've added this to my knowledge base. ✏️ Learnings added
|
commit: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (2)
14-16: Checkout Repository StepThe checkout step uses a pinned commit hash with an inline comment indicating v4, which helps maintain build reproducibility. Consider verifying periodically that this commit hash aligns with the intended stable v4 release.
32-32: Publish Step: Consider Adding a Step NameThe publish command is executed without an accompanying step name. For better clarity and easier debugging, it's recommended to add a descriptive name (e.g., "Publish Package") to this step.
- - run: pnpm dlx pkg-pr-new publish + - name: Publish Package + run: pnpm dlx pkg-pr-new publish
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (6)
1-5: Workflow Triggers and Naming Look GoodThe workflow triggers on both push and pull_request events, and the title "Publish Any Commit" clearly reflects its purpose.
6-9: Concurrency Configuration is CorrectThe dynamic concurrency grouping and the use of "cancel-in-progress: true" ensure that overlapping runs are prevented. This is a solid setup.
17-19: Setup pnpm StepThe step for setting up pnpm is properly implemented with a pinned commit hash. This approach ensures consistency across builds.
20-25: Setup Node.js LTS StepThe configuration for setting up Node.js LTS—with caching enabled for pnpm and using "lts/*"—is correctly stated, ensuring that the workflow uses the appropriate Node.js version.
26-28: Install Dependencies StepUsing
pnpm i --frozen-lockfileguarantees that package installations remain consistent, reducing unexpected behaviors during dependency resolution.
29-31: Build StepThe build step is straightforward and correctly invokes the project's build script via pnpm.
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (1)
10-33: Publishing Job and Steps
The publishing job is comprehensive, with steps for checking out the repository, setting up pnpm and Node.js, installing dependencies, building, and finally publishing the package usingpnpm dlx pkg-pr-new publish --compact.Recommendation: Consider using version tags (e.g.,
actions/checkout@v4) instead of fixed commit hashes unless the intention is to lock to a specific commit for security or consistency reasons. This can ease maintenance and updates in the long run.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (2)
1-5: Workflow Trigger Setup
The workflow is correctly configured to trigger on bothpushandpull_requestevents, ensuring that any commit or PR updates initiate the publishing process.
6-9: Concurrency Configuration
The concurrency block is properly set up to cancel any in-progress runs when a new trigger occurs on the same reference. This helps prevent overlapping builds and potential race conditions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR addresses a missing package.json entry by adding a new changeset and automating the publishing workflow.
- Added a new GitHub workflow to publish commits and pull requests using pnpm.
- Introduced a changeset file to document the fix for the missing package.json entry.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml | New automated workflow for publishing commits |
| .changeset/swift-moles-taste.md | Changeset documenting the fix for the package.json entry |
Files not reviewed (1)
- package.json: Language not supported
|
@coderabbitai don't nitpick on pinning action by commit-hash anymore, see https://blog.rafaelgss.dev/why-you-should-pin-actions-by-commit-hash for more details. |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chain@JounQin I understand your request. I'll no longer recommend pinning GitHub Actions by commit hash in my reviews. I've added this to my knowledge base for future reference. 🌐 Web query: 💡 Result: Rafael Gonzaga's blog post explains that pinning GitHub Actions to full-length commit SHAs is essential for security, as tags (like Key reasons to use commit SHAs:
Implementation steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@378343a27a77b2cfc354f4e84b1b4b29b34f08c2 # v3.0.0
While SHA pinning secures the action code itself, the post cautions that dependencies (like Docker images/NPM packages in actions) still require separate hardening[5][9]. Tools like StepSecurity and Minder help automate SHA pinning across large codebases, with GitHub-native integrations to enforce this practice[3][7]. Citations:
@JounQin I've reviewed the blog post you shared, but I'm a bit confused by your request. The article actually strongly advocates for pinning GitHub Actions by commit hash as a security best practice to prevent supply chain attacks. Did you want me to stop recommending this practice despite it being considered a security enhancement? Or were you suggesting that I should be recommending commit hash pinning based on this article? I'd appreciate your clarification before updating my knowledge base for future reviews. ✏️ Learnings added
|
@coderabbitai No, you nitpicked as above quote for preferring version tag over commit-hash, I requested to stop nitpicking this pattern, |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @JounQin I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. You're absolutely right - I misinterpreted your request. I now understand that you prefer using commit hashes (which is indeed a security best practice as outlined in the article) and want me to stop suggesting version tags instead. I'll make sure to never recommend version tags over commit hashes in future reviews. Thank you for the clarification. ✏️ Learnings added
|
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR addresses a missing package.json entry by adding a changeset entry and introduces a new automated workflow for publishing changes to the package.
- Added a GitHub Actions workflow (.github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml) for automated publishing on push and pull_request events.
- Created a changeset file (.changeset/swift-moles-taste.md) to document the fix for the missing package.json entry.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml | New workflow to automate publishing processes. |
| .changeset/swift-moles-taste.md | Changeset entry documenting the fix for the missing package.json entry. |
Files not reviewed (1)
- package.json: Language not supported
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
.changeset/swift-moles-taste.md (1)
1-6: Verify Changeset Format and Content.
The changeset entry follows the expected format and clearly documents the patch ("fix: add missingpackage.jsonentry"). Please double-check that no placeholder package names (such as"@fake-scope/fake-pkg") appear in this file, in line with previous guidelines.package.json (1)
113-117: New Export Entry for package.json.
A new export entry ("./package.json": "./package.json",) has been added in thepublishConfig.exportssection. This enables consumers to import the package.json directly if needed. Ensure that this exposure is intentional and does not inadvertently leak sensitive configuration details..github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (1)
1-5: Workflow Trigger and Naming.
The workflow is correctly set to trigger on both push and pull_request events with a descriptive name ("Publish Any Commit"). Verify that this naming and trigger configuration aligns with your intended release/publishing process to avoid accidental publishes on non-release commits.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.changeset/swift-moles-taste.md(1 hunks).github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
package.json (1)
6-6: Repository Field Update.
The repository field now correctly omits thegit+prefix, which improves URL compatibility and adheres to modern conventions..github/workflows/pkg-pr-new.yml (2)
6-9: Concurrency Configuration.
The concurrency settings use GitHub-provided variables to ensure only one workflow run per reference at a time, preventing conflicting publishes. This configuration looks solid.
10-34: Job Steps Validation.
The job steps are well-structured and include:
- Checking out the repository
- Setting up pnpm and Node.js
- Installing dependencies, building the project, and publishing the package via
pnpm dlx pkg-pr-new publish --compactThe use of explicit commit hashes for action versions is noted and acceptable given the security rationale already discussed. Just ensure these commit references are maintained over time to avoid accidental breakage.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
New Features
package.jsonfile as an exportable module, improving ease of integration for consumers.These updates boost the overall reliability and interoperability of the package, making it smoother and more intuitive for end users to work with.