ci: add paths for jan server web #6377
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Changes requested ❌
Reviewed everything up to 4d7bf52 in 1 minute and 51 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
36lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
Typographical note: The workflow file's path is listed as '.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yaml' but the actual file's extension is '.yml'. Please verify if the intended file is '.yaml' or '.yml' and adjust accordingly. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Marked as duplicate.
Workflow ID: wflow_OxmtDqwDcoPuwFlI
You can customize 
Minh141120
force-pushed
the
ci/update-paths-jan-server-web
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e32bb9c to
fff3130
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed 3f3aa2b in 1 minute and 55 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
40lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
8draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
Check if the file path trigger uses the correct extension. The workflow file is named '.yml' but the trigger uses '.yaml'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:9
- Draft comment:
Ensure that removing 'src-tauri/**' from the paths is intentional, as changes in this directory will no longer trigger the workflow. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
3. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:12
- Draft comment:
Verify the change from 'scripts/' to 'extensions-web/'. Confirm that scripts changes no longer trigger CI and that 'extensions-web/**' is the intended new path. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
4. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:16
- Draft comment:
The addition of 'yarn.lock' as a trigger is appropriate for dependency updates. Ensure that this change aligns with your intended CI behavior. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%None
5. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:18
- Draft comment:
Adding 'Dockerfile' to the trigger list ensures that changes to the Docker build definition run CI. Confirm that this is the desired behavior. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%None
6. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:3
- Draft comment:
The 'paths' filters for push and pull_request events are nearly identical. Consider using YAML anchors to DRY up the configuration and ensure consistency. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
7. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
Typo Notice: The file path '.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yaml' is referenced here, but the actual file name uses the '.yml' extension. Please verify if this was intended. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
8. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:23
- Draft comment:
Typo Notice: The file path '.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yaml' is referenced here as well, whereas the file name is '.yml'. Please confirm if the correct extension is being used. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
Workflow ID: wflow_ezTV1U6157TdrNUm
You can customize
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed e32bb9c in 2 minutes and 0 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
39lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
3draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
File extension mismatch: the trigger refers to 'jan-server-web-ci.yaml' but the file is named '.yml'. Update to ensure consistency. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:16
- Draft comment:
Inconsistent trigger paths: 'yarn.lock' is added for push events but missing in pull_request. Ensure both events trigger on changes to yarn.lock if intended. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% This is a legitimate inconsistency that could cause different behavior between push and PR events. If yarn.lock changes are meant to trigger the workflow, they should probably trigger it in both cases. However, the comment is phrased as a verification request ("Ensure both events...") which violates our rules about not asking for verification. The inconsistency might be intentional - perhaps they only want to trigger on yarn.lock changes for direct pushes but not PRs. We shouldn't assume it's a mistake. While the inconsistency could be intentional, having different trigger paths between push and PR events for the same workflow is usually unintended and can lead to confusing behavior. The comment identifies a real inconsistency but is phrased as a verification request. It should be rephrased to directly point out the issue rather than asking for verification.
3. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:9
- Draft comment:
Removed 'src-tauri/' and replaced 'scripts/' with 'extensions-web/**'. Update the PR description/documentation if this change is intentional. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to update the PR description, which is against the rules. It also asks to confirm if the change is intentional, which is not allowed. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written.
Workflow ID: wflow_tsZxX2x61BR32kvy
You can customize
Minh141120
force-pushed
the
ci/update-paths-jan-server-web
branch
from
fff3130 to
c3a44dd
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed fff3130 in 1 minute and 50 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
42lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
3draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
File extension updated from .yaml to .yml. Please ensure this is consistent with the actual file name. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the author to ensure consistency between the file extension and the actual file name. This is a request for confirmation, which violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or to double-check things.
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:9
- Draft comment:
Removal of 'src-tauri/' and replacement of 'scripts/' with 'extensions-web/**' differs from the PR description. Confirm these changes are intentional. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention regarding changes that differ from the PR description. This violates the rule against asking for confirmation of intention or to update the PR description.
3. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:30
- Draft comment:
The push event includes 'yarn.lock' while the pull_request event does not. Consider adding 'yarn.lock' to pull_request paths for consistency. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is about CI configuration, and inconsistency in trigger paths could lead to different behavior between PRs and pushes. However, yarn.lock changes are dependency-related, and per the rules we should not comment on dependency-related changes. The PR author likely had a specific reason for this configuration. The inconsistency could cause real issues with CI behavior, and maybe this isn't just about dependencies but about proper CI triggering. While CI consistency is important, the rules explicitly state not to comment on dependency-related changes, which includes yarn.lock. We should trust the author's judgment on CI configuration. Delete the comment as it relates to dependency management (yarn.lock), which we are instructed not to comment on.
Workflow ID: wflow_Dm1D94WodoGVxd03
You can customize
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed c3a44dd in 1 minute and 39 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
41lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:8
- Draft comment:
Filename filter updated from '.yaml' to '.yml'. Ensure this change matches the actual file naming. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:9
- Draft comment:
The 'src-tauri/**' path filter was removed. Confirm that changes in 'src-tauri' are no longer meant to trigger this workflow. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment looked like it was already resolved.
3. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:12
- Draft comment:
Replaced 'scripts/' with 'extensions-web/'. Verify that this change reflects the intended trigger paths. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the author to verify if the change in trigger paths is intentional. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
4. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:17
- Draft comment:
Added 'Dockerfile' to the paths. Confirm that modifications to this file should trigger the workflow. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
Workflow ID: wflow_IJX3uXCCon5roLbN
You can customize
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed f11899d in 1 minute and 45 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
20lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
2draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:11
- Draft comment:
Removed 'pre-install/**' from push triggers. Confirm this removal is intentional, as changes in pre-install may need CI. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment violates several rules. First, it's asking for confirmation ("Confirm this removal is intentional"), which is explicitly against our rules. Second, it's speculative ("may need CI"). Third, we don't have enough context to know if pre-install actually needs CI - we should trust that the author knows what they're doing when removing a path trigger. Maybe the pre-install directory contains critical setup code that really does need CI, and removing it could break the build process? Even if pre-install is important, asking for confirmation isn't helpful - the author deliberately made this change and likely knows the implications. If it causes issues, the build process itself will reveal that. Delete this comment as it violates rules against asking for confirmation and making speculative statements.
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:24
- Draft comment:
Removed 'pre-install/' from pull_request triggers. Verify that changes in pre-install/ no longer require triggering the workflow. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to verify that changes in 'pre-install/**' no longer require triggering the workflow. This is asking for confirmation of intention, which violates the rules.
Workflow ID: wflow_MjMiX9i5okpSypsy
You can customize
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed 58cdb61 in 1 minute and 19 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
20lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
2draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:14
- Draft comment:
Removed 'mise.toml' from push trigger paths, but the PR description mentions it as a key file. Please confirm if this removal is intentional or update the description. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =40%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to confirm if the removal of 'mise.toml' from push trigger paths is intentional or to update the description. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or update the PR description. However, the comment does point out a potential discrepancy between the code change and the PR description, which could be useful. I need to decide if the useful part outweighs the rule violation.
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:26
- Draft comment:
Removed 'mise.toml' from pull_request trigger paths. Ensure this aligns with the intended behavior described in the PR. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the removal of 'mise.toml' from the trigger paths aligns with the intended behavior. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention, which is against the rules.
Workflow ID: wflow_5dlNQMbpVnJACNOF
You can customize
|
🌐 Preview available: https://pr-8a5654e69de34a9bac8101066ecba0923f9863cd-jan-server-web.menlo.ai |
|
🌐 Preview available: https://pr-07a20c014d1c99c5596a0e284137654c70dfc90c-jan-server-web.menlo.ai |
|
🌐 Preview available: https://pr-08a787faf2fe3a1ee54c5911d87020e946100205-jan-server-web.menlo.ai |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed 8220695 in 1 minute and 32 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
43lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
3draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:52
- Draft comment:
Removed installation of the GitHub CLI (gh). Please confirm this removal is intentional and that no subsequent step depends on gh now that you're using the add-pr-comment action. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
2. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:113
- Draft comment:
The manual logic for adding/updating a preview comment using gh API calls has been replaced with the mshick/add-pr-comment action. Verify that this action properly updates existing comments (or adds a unique marker if needed) to avoid duplicate comments on the PR. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
3. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:118
- Draft comment:
Consider adding a newline at the end of the file to follow POSIX best practices. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
Workflow ID: wflow_IeyJS8DQY3cSAaoi
You can customize
|
🌐 Preview available: https://pr-9eb93d474deb7a62d6bd309fa03bea221eb50846-jan-server-web.menlo.ai |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed 354cda8 in 1 minute and 10 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
12lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. .github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yml:55
- Draft comment:
Removing the duplicate update command (apt-get update) is good. The priorsudo apt updatealready refreshes the cache, so this redundant call was unnecessary. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%This comment is purely informative, explaining why a change was good. It doesn't provide a suggestion or ask for confirmation on a specific code change.
Workflow ID: wflow_9ZeKlOdMlCbqOaMJ
You can customize
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request updates the workflow trigger conditions in
.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.ymlto make the CI pipeline more efficient by only running on relevant file changes. The main change is the addition ofpathsfilters for bothpushandpull_requestevents, ensuring that the workflow only runs when specific files or directories are modified.Workflow trigger improvements:
pathsfilters to thepushevent so the workflow only runs when changes are made to key files and directories such as.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.yaml,src-tauri/**,core/**,web-app/**,extensions/**,scripts/**,pre-install/**,Makefile,package.json, andmise.toml.pathsfilters to thepull_requestevent, restricting workflow runs to changes in the same set of files and directories.Important
Adds path filters to CI workflow triggers and replaces custom PR comment script with a GitHub action in
jan-server-web-ci.yml.pathsfilters topushandpull_requestevents in.github/workflows/jan-server-web-ci.ymlto run only on changes to specific files and directories likecore/**,web-app/**,Makefile,package.json, andDockerfile.mshick/add-pr-comment@v2action injan-server-web-ci.yml.This description was created by
for 354cda8. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.