fix: disallow --name flag when adding multiple workflows at once

[Copilot]

Summary

The gh aw add command supports adding multiple workflows at once:

gh aw add workflow1 workflow2 ...

This PR adds a validation error when the --name flag is used alongside multiple workflow arguments, since a single custom name cannot meaningfully apply to multiple workflows.

Error: --name flag cannot be used when adding multiple workflows at once

Changes

• pkg/cli/add_command.go: Added an early check in RunE that returns an error if --name is set and more than one workflow argument is provided. Updated the help text to state that --name is not allowed when adding multiple workflows.
• pkg/cli/add_command_test.go: Added TestAddMultipleWorkflowsNameFlag to verify the error is returned when --name is combined with multiple workflow arguments.
• .changeset/patch-add-multiple-workflows.md: Changeset entry for this fix.

[pelikhan]

@copilot --name is not allowed when multiple workflows are specified.

[Copilot]

@copilot --name is not allowed when multiple workflows are specified.

Done in 115cbc6. --name now returns an error when multiple workflow arguments are provided:

Error: --name flag cannot be used when adding multiple workflows at once

Also updated the help text and replaced the previous "silently apply to first" test with one that verifies the error.

[github-actions]

🧪 Test Quality Sentinel Report

Test Quality Score: 100/100

✅ Excellent test quality

Metric	Value
New/modified tests analyzed	1
✅ Design tests (behavioral contracts)	1 (100%)
⚠️ Implementation tests (low value)	0 (0%)
Tests with error/edge cases	1 (100%)
Duplicate test clusters	0
Test inflation detected	No
🚨 Coding-guideline violations	None

---

Test Classification Details

Test	File	Classification	Issues Detected
TestAddMultipleWorkflowsNameFlag	pkg/cli/add_command_test.go:340	✅ Design	—

---

Language Support

Tests analyzed:

• 🐹 Go (*_test.go): 1 test — unit (//go:build !integration)

---

Verdict

✅ Check passed. 0% of new tests are implementation tests (threshold: 30%).

The new test TestAddMultipleWorkflowsNameFlag verifies the behavioral contract directly: it invokes the command with --name and multiple workflow arguments and asserts that an error is returned with the appropriate message. Both require.Error and assert.Contains include descriptive messages. Build tag is correctly set. No mock libraries used.

📖 Understanding Test Classifications

Design Tests (High Value) verify what the system does:

• Assert on observable outputs, return values, or state changes
• Cover error paths and boundary conditions
• Would catch a behavioral regression if deleted
• Remain valid even after internal refactoring

Implementation Tests (Low Value) verify how the system does it:

• Assert on internal function calls (mocking internals)
• Only test the happy path with typical inputs
• Break during legitimate refactoring even when behavior is correct
• Give false assurance: they pass even when the system is wrong

Goal: Shift toward tests that describe the system's behavioral contract — the promises it makes to its users and collaborators.

References: §24874320128

🧪 Test quality analysis by Test Quality Sentinel · ● 363.3K · ◷

[github-actions]

✅ Test Quality Sentinel: 100/100. Test quality is excellent — 0% of new tests are implementation tests (threshold: 30%).

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds CLI validation to prevent using a single --name value when adding multiple workflows via gh aw add, and updates tests and release notes accordingly.

Changes:

• Add an early RunE validation error when --name is used with multiple workflow arguments.
• Update gh aw add help text to clarify the --name restriction.
• Add a unit test covering --name with multiple workflow args; add a changeset entry.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
pkg/cli/add_command.go	Adds validation and updates help text for --name with multiple workflows.
pkg/cli/add_command_test.go	Adds a test asserting an error when --name is combined with multiple workflow args.
.changeset/patch-add-multiple-workflows.md	Documents the fix in release notes (currently mismatched with implemented behavior).

Copilot's findings

Tip

Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

• Files reviewed: 3/3 changed files
• Comments generated: 3

[Copilot]

The validation only triggers when nameFlag != "" and len(args) > 1, which still allows using --name in cases where a single argument resolves to multiple workflows (e.g., local wildcard patterns) and also allows --name="" since the value remains empty. To fully enforce “flag cannot be used when adding multiple workflows”, consider checking cmd.Flags().Changed("name") and validating against the number of resolved workflows (or pre-expanding local wildcards) rather than only len(args) and a non-empty string value.

[Copilot]

The changeset text says the fix makes --name “only apply to the first workflow when adding multiple workflows”, but this PR’s behavior (and the CLI help/error) disallows --name entirely when adding multiple workflows. The changeset should be updated to describe the actual behavior change (disallowing --name with multiple workflows) to avoid publishing incorrect release notes.

[Copilot]

This test covers the multiple-args case, but it doesn’t exercise other “multiple workflows at once” paths that the new restriction likely intends to cover, such as a single local wildcard argument that resolves to multiple workflows, or --name="" (flag present but empty). Adding tests for these cases would help prevent regressions once the validation is tightened.

Suggested change

	cmd := NewAddCommand(validateEngineStub)
	// Simulate calling the command with --name and multiple workflow arguments
	cmd.SetArgs([]string{"workflow1", "workflow2", "--name", "custom-name"})
	err := cmd.Execute()
	require.Error(t, err, "Should error when --name is used with multiple workflows")
	assert.Contains(t, err.Error(), "--name flag cannot be used when adding multiple workflows", "Error should mention --name restriction")
	tests := []struct {
	name string
	args []string
	}{
	{
	name: "non-empty name with multiple workflow arguments",
	args: []string{"workflow1", "workflow2", "--name", "custom-name"},
	},
	{
	name: "explicitly empty name with multiple workflow arguments",
	args: []string{"workflow1", "workflow2", "--name="},
	},
	}
	for _, tt := range tests {
	t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
	cmd := NewAddCommand(validateEngineStub)
	// Simulate calling the command with --name and multiple workflow arguments
	cmd.SetArgs(tt.args)
	err := cmd.Execute()
	require.Error(t, err, "Should error when --name is used with multiple workflows")
	assert.Contains(t, err.Error(), "--name flag cannot be used when adding multiple workflows", "Error should mention --name restriction")
	})
	}

[github-actions]

Great work on this fix, @Copilot! 🎉 The validation for disallowing --name when multiple workflows are specified is clean, well-scoped, and includes a dedicated test case (TestAddMultipleWorkflowsNameFlag) along with an updated help string and changeset entry. This PR looks ready for maintainer review!

Generated by Contribution Check · ● 1.5M · ◷