fix: remove deploy to old staging CD phase#84
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughModified GitHub Actions Docker workflow by adding an Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Comment |
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Important
Looks good to me! 👍
Reviewed everything up to c70d9b8 in 1 minute and 25 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
30lines 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/docker.yml:8
- Draft comment:
The new 'rc' input is added under workflow_dispatch but isn’t used in any steps. Consider referencing it (e.g., via github.event.inputs.rc) in versioning or deployment commands if needed. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is pointing out that an input was added but not used. However, the rules state "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" and "Do NOT make speculative comments, such as 'If X, then Y is an issue'". This comment uses the phrase "Consider referencing it...if needed" which is speculative - it's suggesting the author might want to use it, but not definitively saying there's a bug. The author may have intentionally added this input for future use, or may be planning to use it in a follow-up change. The comment doesn't identify a clear bug or required change - it's more of an informational observation. The comment could be valid if the unused input represents incomplete work or a clear mistake. The author added this input in this PR, so they likely had a reason - maybe they're planning to use it, or maybe they forgot to wire it up. Without more context about the PR's intent, I can't be certain this is wrong. While the author may have had a reason to add the input, the fact remains that adding an unused input parameter is likely unintentional or incomplete. However, the comment uses soft language like "Consider" and "if needed" which makes it speculative rather than definitive. The rules explicitly say not to make speculative comments or ask the author to confirm their intention. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative and uses soft language ("Consider...if needed") rather than identifying a definitive issue. It's asking the author to consider whether they intended to use the input, which violates the rule against asking authors to confirm their intention or explain their changes.
2. .github/workflows/docker.yml:157
- Draft comment:
Removed the staging deployment step. Ensure that any dependencies on the old 'Staging' environment are updated accordingly. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
Workflow ID: wflow_SK8ptH7xEUMWRJTD
You can customize 
![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
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @.github/workflows/docker.yml:
- Around line 8-12: The workflow defines an unused input parameter named "rc";
either remove it or wire it into the release/tagging flow: when creating
versions/tags, Docker metadata, and the Octopus release (look for the steps that
build the version string, create the Octopus release, and the deploy step),
append the "rc" input only if inputs.rc is non-empty (e.g., treat inputs.rc as a
suffix like "-rc.1"); alternatively, if you intend to keep it for future use add
a TODO comment near the "rc" input declaring intended behavior. Ensure the
symbols referenced (inputs.rc, the step that builds the version string, the
Octopus release creation step, and Docker metadata/tagging steps) are updated
consistently so the release and tags include the rc suffix when provided.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Disabled knowledge base sources:
- Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories
You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/docker.yml
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: build
- GitHub Check: Analyze (rust)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/docker.yml (1)
166-171: Deployment to staging-new retained correctly.The removal of the old staging deployment step and retention of the "staging-new" deployment aligns with the PR objectives. The workflow now only deploys to the new staging environment, which appears to be the intended migration path.
| inputs: | ||
| rc: | ||
| description: "Optional release-candidate suffix (e.g. rc.1, beta)" | ||
| required: false | ||
| default: "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The rc input parameter is defined but never used.
The rc input parameter is added to the workflow dispatch but is not referenced anywhere in the workflow. If this is intended for future use to support release candidates or beta versions, consider either:
- Implementing its usage in the version tags and Octopus release creation steps
- Removing it until it's actually needed
- Adding a TODO comment explaining the intended future use
Example implementation if `rc` should be used
If the rc suffix should be applied to versions, you could modify the Octopus release creation:
- name: Create Octopus Release
env:
OCTOPUS_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.OCTOPUS_API_KEY }}
OCTOPUS_URL: ${{ secrets.OCTOPUS_URL }}
OCTOPUS_SPACE: ${{ secrets.OCTOPUS_SPACE }}
- run: octopus release create --project hub --version=sha-${GITHUB_SHA::7} --packageVersion=sha-${GITHUB_SHA::7} --no-prompt
+ run: |
+ VERSION="sha-${GITHUB_SHA::7}"
+ if [ -n "${{ inputs.rc }}" ]; then
+ VERSION="${VERSION}-${{ inputs.rc }}"
+ fi
+ octopus release create --project hub --version=${VERSION} --packageVersion=${VERSION} --no-promptAnd similarly for the deploy step and Docker metadata tags.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In @.github/workflows/docker.yml around lines 8 - 12, The workflow defines an
unused input parameter named "rc"; either remove it or wire it into the
release/tagging flow: when creating versions/tags, Docker metadata, and the
Octopus release (look for the steps that build the version string, create the
Octopus release, and the deploy step), append the "rc" input only if inputs.rc
is non-empty (e.g., treat inputs.rc as a suffix like "-rc.1"); alternatively, if
you intend to keep it for future use add a TODO comment near the "rc" input
declaring intended behavior. Ensure the symbols referenced (inputs.rc, the step
that builds the version string, the Octopus release creation step, and Docker
metadata/tagging steps) are updated consistently so the release and tags include
the rc suffix when provided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will be in the following PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@OzBenSimhonTraceloop, understood! Would you like me to create an issue to track implementing the rc parameter usage in the workflow for the next PR?
2 participants
Important
Removes deployment step to old Staging environment in
.github/workflows/docker.yml.Stagingenvironment in.github/workflows/docker.yml.This description was created by
for c70d9b8. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.