Bump step-security/changed-files to v47 - #2103
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull-request, example-test, and unit-test workflows update ChangesWorkflow action updates
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 6✅ Passed checks (6 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2103 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.60% 78.08% -0.52%
==========================================
Files 522 522
Lines 60167 60167
==========================================
- Hits 47294 46982 -312
- Misses 12873 13185 +312
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Split from the other Node 20 bumps because the example lane gating depends on this action's files_yaml group outputs and any_modified semantics, and v47 ships no release notes covering them. Keeping it alone makes a gating regression attributable. Checked at v47.0.5: micromatch is still ^4.0.5 (the matcher the lane patterns were verified against), files/files_ignore/files_yaml/ files_ignore_yaml are all still inputs, and any_modified/any_changed/ changed_keys are still documented outputs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Keval Morabia <28916987+kevalmorabia97@users.noreply.github.com>
b39a6d4 to
140ab2e
Compare
|
### What does this PR do? Type of change: CI/CD maintenance #2102 and #2103 bumped every action this repo references *directly*, but Node 20 annotations still appear — e.g. [this run on #2103](https://github.com/NVIDIA/Model-Optimizer/actions/runs/31170982088?pr=2103): > The following actions target Node.js 20 but are being forced to run on Node.js 24: `actions/github-script@60a0d83039c74a4aee543508d2ffcb1c3799cdea` We never reference `github-script`. It comes in transitively through `codecov/codecov-action`: | codecov-action | bundled github-script | runtime | |---|---|---| | `@v5` (= v5.5.5) | `60a0d830…` | **node20** | | `@v6.0.2` / `@v7.0.0` | `ed597411…` | node24 | Bumps all four call sites (`unit_tests`, `gpu_tests`, `regression_tests`, `_example_tests_runner`) to `@v7`. Checked: v6's notes call out node24 support as the only breaking aspect — the same pattern as the bumps in #2102 — and our runners report 2.336.0. The inputs used here (`token`, `files`, `flags`, `fail_ci_if_error`, `verbose`) all still exist in v7. A scan of every referenced action, direct and one level transitive, now finds no node20 runtimes left. ### Testing Coverage upload runs in every unit, gpu, regression and example job, so CI exercises this broadly. Worth checking that coverage still lands in Codecov rather than only that the step is green — `fail_ci_if_error: false` means an upload failure would not turn the job red. ### Before your PR is "*Ready for review*" - Is this change backward compatible?: ✅ - If you copied code from any other sources or added a new PIP dependency, did you follow guidance in `CONTRIBUTING.md`: N/A - Did you write any new necessary tests?: N/A — CI configuration - Did you update [Changelog](https://github.com/NVIDIA/Model-Optimizer/blob/main/CHANGELOG.rst)?: N/A - Did you get Claude approval on this PR?: ❌ — not yet run <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit * **Chores** * Updated automated test workflows to use the latest coverage reporting action. * Improved compatibility and reliability of coverage report uploads across example, GPU, regression, and unit tests. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> Signed-off-by: Keval Morabia <28916987+kevalmorabia97@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
What does this PR do?
Type of change: CI/CD maintenance
Last of the Node 20 actions:
step-security/changed-filesv46.0.5 → v47.0.5, in_pr_gate.yml,example_tests.ymlandunit_tests.yml.Deliberately separate from #2102. Every gate in the repo runs through this action, and the example lanes depend on its
files_yamlper-group outputs plusany_modifiedsemantics. v47 has no release notes describing output behavior, and the upstream v47 notes are dependency bumps only — so this is the one bump I could not clear from a changelog. On its own, any gating regression is unambiguous.What I did verify at
v47.0.5:micromatchis still^4.0.5— the matcher the lane patterns were validated againstfiles,files_ignore,files_yaml,files_ignore_yamlare all still inputsany_modified,any_changed,changed_keysare all still documented outputsTesting
Static checks above. The behavior that matters cannot be proven from this PR: it changes workflow files, which are in the
commongroup, so every lane runs regardless of whether gating still works. I plan to confirm with a throwaway probe PR against this branch — a docs-only change must run nothing, and a single-example change must run exactly one lane — the same method that caught the two ignore bugs fixed in #2101.Before your PR is "Ready for review"
CONTRIBUTING.md: N/ASummary by CodeRabbit