Skip to content

[No QA] Require production release before triggering new staging deploy#90836

Draft
roryabraham wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
check-production-release-before-staging-deploy
Draft

[No QA] Require production release before triggering new staging deploy#90836
roryabraham wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
check-production-release-before-staging-deploy

Conversation

@roryabraham
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham commented May 15, 2026

Explanation of Change

Before triggering a new staging deploy, this adds a check to verify that the previous deploy cycle has fully completed. Specifically, it:

  1. Finds the most recent closed StagingDeployCash deploy checklist
  2. Extracts the version from that checklist (e.g. 1.2.3-4 from the **Release Version:** \1.2.3-4-staging`` line)
  3. Checks whether a non-prerelease GitHub Release exists for that version tag
  4. If no production release is found, sets SHOULD_DEPLOY=false — preventing a new staging cycle from starting while the previous one hasn't shipped to production yet

This prevents the case where staging gets bumped to a new version before the prior version has been released to production, which can cause the deploy checklist to fall out of sync.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

This is a CI workflow change only — no app code is modified. The logic can be verified by inspecting the GitHub Actions run logs for the new hasProductionRelease step.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — CI workflow change only.

QA Steps

N/A — CI workflow change only. [No QA]

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Made with Cursor

@roryabraham @cursoragent
Require production release before triggering new staging deploy
df3444f 
Before allowing a new staging deploy, check that the previous cycle
has fully completed by verifying a non-prerelease GitHub Release exists
for the version listed on the most recent closed deploy checklist.
If no such production release is found, SHOULD_DEPLOY is set to false.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@roryabraham

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@roryabraham roryabraham changed the title Require production release before triggering new staging deploy [No QA] Require production release before triggering new staging deploy May 15, 2026
chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

@roryabraham @cursoragent
Sort closed deploy checklists by closed_at to find most recent
599d651 
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@Expensify Expensify deleted a comment from chatgpt-codex-connector Bot May 15, 2026
@roryabraham

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@chatgpt-codex-connector

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view
roryabraham and others added 2 commits May 15, 2026 15:35
@roryabraham @cursoragent
Replace inline bash with hasProductionRelease JS action
b87ae82 
Extract the production release check into a proper TypeScript action
using the existing DeployChecklistUtils infrastructure, keeping
the logic DRY and consistent with how similar checks are implemented.

- Add getLastClosedDeployChecklist() to DeployChecklistUtils.ts, which
  fetches recent closed StagingDeployCash issues sorted by created and
  re-sorts by closed_at to reliably find the most recently closed one
- Add hasProductionRelease action that uses it to check for a
  non-prerelease GitHub Release for that checklist's version
- Register the action in buildActions.sh and compile index.js
- Simplify preDeploy.yml to use the action instead of inline bash

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@roryabraham @cursoragent
Fix ESLint, Prettier, and recompile actions
c494e69 
- Add eslint-disable comment for per_page (snake_case Octokit param)
- Run Prettier on hasProductionRelease.ts (import order + formatting)
- Recompile all actions via npm run gh-actions-build so index.js files
  match what CI produces (isDeployChecklistLocked also updated since
  it bundles DeployChecklistUtils.ts which we modified)

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@roryabraham

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

@roryabraham @cursoragent
Fail closed on unexpected errors, not just missing checklist
174476e 
getLastClosedDeployChecklist() now returns null when no closed
checklists exist (first deploy cycle) rather than throwing, so the
action can distinguish the safe "fail open" bootstrap case from real
errors (API failures, network issues, parse errors) which should
block the deploy rather than silently skipping the safety gate.

- getLastClosedDeployChecklist: return null instead of throwing when
  no issues found; actual API/parse errors still throw and propagate
- hasProductionRelease action: null → fail open with a clear log;
  thrown errors propagate and fail the action (fail closed); unparseable
  version on a found checklist → core.setFailed (also fail closed)

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@roryabraham

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

@roryabraham @cursoragent
Only treat 404 as missing release; rethrow other API errors
f92ff91 
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@roryabraham
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

roryabraham commented May 15, 2026

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed May 15, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f92ff91699

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread .github/workflows/preDeploy.yml
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@roryabraham roryabraham

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@roryabraham