migrate image builders to ubicloud

[rubenfiszel]

Important

Migrates Docker image building to Ubicloud with a new multi-platform workflow and optimizes the Dockerfile build process.

• Workflows:
  • Migrates image building to Ubicloud in docker-image.yml by using multi-build-arch.yml.
  • Adds multi-build-arch.yml for multi-platform Docker image builds with inputs for registry, image name, and build arguments.
  • Updates branches in docker-image.yml to include rf/migrateFromDepot.
• Dockerfile:
  • Updates Dockerfile to use cargo build --jobs $(nproc) for optimized build performance.
• Misc:
  • Comments out old build steps in docker-image.yml and replaces them with calls to multi-build-arch.yml.

^{This description was created by for f1c6161. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to effb0b6 in 22 seconds

More details

• Looked at 336 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:169

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the input to jq is sanitized to prevent command injection vulnerabilities. Consider using a safer method to handle JSON data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful.

Workflow ID: wflow_n5ExKjBGtVTDpKMP

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying windmill with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	e347219
Status:	✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://687dc573.windmill.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://rf-migratefromdepot.windmill.pages.dev

View logs

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on edddf7e in 16 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:40

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the new workflow file multi-build-arch.yml exists and is correctly configured to replace docker-multi-platform.yml.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The change in the workflow file is straightforward, but it's important to ensure that the new file path is correct and that the workflow it references is valid.

Workflow ID: wflow_rb26C69ovPBlcRRc

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 34b51f8 in 19 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:12

• Draft comment:
  The addition of 'rf/migrateFromDepot' to the branches list will trigger the workflow on pushes to this branch. Ensure this is intentional and aligns with your branching strategy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The branch name 'rf/migrateFromDepot' is added to the list of branches that trigger the workflow on push events. This is a minor change but should be noted for its impact on workflow execution.

Workflow ID: wflow_4oN4eXI1Fxnf9tDe

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on d9bc8ae in 25 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:47

• Draft comment:
  Reducing build_runner_cpus from 32 to 16 may impact build performance. Ensure this aligns with resource and performance expectations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The change reduces the CPU allocation for the build runner from 32 to 16. This could potentially impact build performance, especially for large builds. However, without specific context on the build requirements or resource constraints, it's difficult to assess the impact. It's important to ensure that this change aligns with the intended resource allocation and performance expectations.

Workflow ID: wflow_JyVm73AQ80N4OBqB

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on ca91939 in 18 seconds

More details

• Looked at 36 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:99

• Draft comment:
  Using ${{ github.actor }} and ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} for Docker registry login is a good practice for security. Ensure that ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} has the necessary permissions for the registry operations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20%
  The PR changes the login credentials for the Docker registry from a custom username and password to using the GitHub actor and token. This is a security improvement as it uses GitHub's built-in authentication mechanism.

Workflow ID: wflow_ASA0o2dM5ACkJTxI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 6644597 in 17 seconds

More details

• Looked at 18 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:43

• Draft comment:
  The logic for image_name is complex and could be simplified for better readability. Consider using a more straightforward conditional or extracting this logic into a separate step for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR changes the registry to 'ghcr.io' and modifies the image_name logic. The logic for image_name is complex and could be simplified for better readability and maintainability.

Workflow ID: wflow_iw6X7jVciXD8Fp9U

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 30737fa in 25 seconds

More details

• Looked at 25 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:157

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that the GITHUB_TOKEN has the necessary permissions for Docker registry operations. This change replaces the custom registry username and password with the GitHub actor and GITHUB_TOKEN, which may have different permissions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The PR changes the authentication method for Docker registry login from using a custom registry username and password to using the GitHub actor and GITHUB_TOKEN. This is a common practice for GitHub Actions, but it is important to ensure that the GITHUB_TOKEN has the necessary permissions for the registry operations.

Workflow ID: wflow_diGgGdIpvCbC48j5

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 0f6092c in 36 seconds

More details

• Looked at 30 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. Dockerfile:53

• Draft comment:
  Commenting out the cache mount lines (lines 53-55 and 66-68) can lead to slower build times as caching is disabled. Consider re-enabling these lines to improve build performance.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is about actual changes in the diff. The author likely had a reason to comment out these specific cargo chef caching steps while keeping the final cargo build caching. This could be intentional optimization or troubleshooting. The comment makes assumptions about build performance without understanding the full context of why these specific cache steps were disabled.
  I might be missing information about cargo chef's role in the build process. The author could have valid reasons for disabling these specific cache steps while keeping others.
  While caching can improve performance, the selective disabling of specific cache steps while keeping others suggests this was an intentional change that shouldn't be second-guessed without more context.
  Delete this comment as it makes assumptions about build performance without understanding the context of why these specific cache steps were disabled while others were kept.

Workflow ID: wflow_bvcjqxXp5PD6p3BV

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 7e4c63b in 20 seconds

More details

• Looked at 39 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. Dockerfile:15

• Draft comment:
  The CARGO_NET_GIT_FETCH_WITH_CLI environment variable is set multiple times. Consider setting it once globally if it's needed throughout the build process.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33%
  The CARGO_NET_GIT_FETCH_WITH_CLI environment variable is set multiple times in the Dockerfile. It might be beneficial to set it once globally if it's needed throughout the build process.

2. Dockerfile:70

• Draft comment:
  The COPY ./openflow.openapi.yaml /openflow.openapi.yaml command is duplicated. Consider removing the redundant copy to streamline the Dockerfile.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The COPY command on line 70 duplicates the one on line 50. This redundancy should be removed to streamline the Dockerfile.

3. Dockerfile:71

• Draft comment:
  The COPY ./backend ./ command is duplicated. Consider removing the redundant copy to streamline the Dockerfile.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The COPY ./backend ./ command is duplicated on line 71 and line 51. This redundancy should be removed to streamline the Dockerfile.

Workflow ID: wflow_uv2Vyt7YceIM52yO

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 95812a8 in 1 minute and 56 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:127

• Draft comment:
  Consider sanitizing inputs.image_name to avoid invalid characters in artifact names.
• 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%
  The comment raises a valid concern - artifact names in GitHub Actions can't contain certain characters. However, image_name is likely already constrained by Docker naming rules which are similarly restrictive. Docker image names can only contain lowercase letters, digits, underscores, periods and dashes - which are all valid in artifact names too. Since this is a Docker workflow, image_name must already follow Docker rules.
  I could be wrong about the Docker image name restrictions being a sufficient constraint. There could be edge cases I'm not considering.
  Even if there are edge cases, the workflow would fail immediately and clearly if invalid characters were used. This is not a security risk, just a potential runtime error that would be caught early.
  The comment should be deleted since image_name must already follow Docker naming conventions which are compatible with artifact names.

2. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:127

• Draft comment:
  Including inputs.image_name in the artifact name improves uniqueness, but ensure that its value is sanitized to avoid invalid characters in artifact names.
• 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%
  Since image_name is used for Docker image names, it must already follow Docker naming conventions which are quite restrictive. The same value is used successfully elsewhere in the workflow. If there were invalid characters, it would fail in the Docker steps before reaching this point. The comment is being overly cautious about a theoretical problem.
  What if someone passes an image name that works for Docker but contains characters that GitHub Actions artifacts don't support? The platforms might have different character restrictions.
  Docker image naming rules are actually more restrictive than GitHub artifact naming. If the name works for Docker, it will work for artifacts. Also, this workflow has likely been tested with real image names.
  The comment should be deleted as it raises a theoretical issue without strong evidence of a real problem, and the suggested sanitization is likely unnecessary given Docker's strict naming requirements.

3. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:111

• Draft comment:
  Typographical inconsistency: The scope for cache-from and cache-to is set as 'ubicloud-${{ matrix.runner }}'. Consider verifying that this spelling is intentional, as it appears to differ from common usage (e.g., 'ubicloud-standard-...'). If this is a typo, please correct it for consistency.
• 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_nzvTDFDaSRAj1XpP

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 498c9bd in 1 minute and 58 seconds

More details

• Looked at 43 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:47

• Draft comment:
  New input 'name: windmill' is added to distinguish this build. Consider whether 'name' is clear enough or if a more descriptive identifier (e.g. 'builder_name') would avoid confusion with top-level workflow names.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The current name 'name' is simple and clear enough in context. The parameter is used consistently across builds. The suggested rename to 'builder_name' doesn't add significant clarity - it's already obvious from context that this names the build. Making this change would require coordinated changes in multiple files. This seems like a purely subjective suggestion that doesn't meaningfully improve code quality.
  The comment does raise a valid point about being explicit in parameter naming. In a complex CI system, more descriptive parameter names could help readability.
  While descriptive names are good, the current name is already clear in context and the suggested change would require coordinated changes for minimal benefit. The comment violates the rule about not making purely informative comments that don't clearly require code changes.
  Delete this comment. The suggested rename is a matter of preference rather than a clear improvement, and would require coordinated changes across files for minimal benefit.

2. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:128

• Draft comment:
  Similarly, 'name: windmill-ee' is introduced. Consider using a more descriptive key to avoid ambiguity with reserved names.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%

1. The name 'windmill-ee' is used consistently throughout the codebase. 2. There's no evidence this is actually ambiguous with any reserved names. 3. The shorter name is more practical and already clear in meaning. 4. This appears to be a purely stylistic suggestion without clear benefit. 5. Making this change would require coordinated changes across many places in the codebase.
   I could be wrong about whether this name conflicts with something in the GitHub Actions environment. Maybe there is a reserved name issue I'm not aware of.
   Even if there was a reserved name conflict, it would likely have already caused issues since this code appears to be in active use. The lack of any apparent problems suggests this is not a real concern.
   This comment suggests a purely stylistic change without clear benefit and would require coordinated changes across the codebase. The current name is clear and functional.

3. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:12

• Draft comment:
  Added required input 'name'. Consider renaming this input (e.g. to 'builder_name') to avoid potential confusion with the workflow's top-level 'name' field.
• 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%
  The suggestion is reasonable since 'name' is quite generic and could be confused with the workflow name. However, the parameter's usage in the digest artifact naming suggests it's more about identifying the build/artifact than about building. The confusion risk is also low since workflow name is a top-level field while this is clearly an input parameter in a different context.
  The comment might be overstating the risk of confusion - GitHub Actions users are familiar with the distinction between workflow names and input parameters. Also, 'builder_name' might not accurately reflect the parameter's purpose.
  While the naming could be improved, this seems more like a style preference than a clear issue requiring a code change. The current name works fine in its context.
  This comment should be removed as it's more of a style suggestion than a clear issue, and the current name is functional and clear enough in context.

4. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:130

• Draft comment:
  Artifact upload now uses '${{ inputs.name }}'. Verify that this change in naming is intentional and that it aligns with the desired image identifier.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 30% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify if the change in naming is intentional. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention. However, it does point out a specific change in the code, which could be useful if rephrased to suggest a review of the naming convention without asking for confirmation.

5. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:47

• Draft comment:
  Added 'name: windmill' for the main build. Ensure this explicit naming aligns with your registry/image conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. .github/workflows/docker-image.yml:128

• Draft comment:
  Added 'name: windmill-ee' for the EE build. Verify that using this explicit name is consistent with your naming scheme.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:10

• Draft comment:
  Introduced a new required input 'name'. Consider documenting its role and how it differs from 'image_name'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:127

• Draft comment:
  Updated artifact naming to use 'inputs.name' instead of 'inputs.image_name'. Confirm that this change is intentional for consistent naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_vUunKKXql1Swle5L

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on d14060b in 1 minute and 23 seconds

More details

• Looked at 51 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 11 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. backend/src/main.rs:227

• Draft comment:
  Changed server mode log from verbose to 'server mode'. Ensure that this shorter message provides enough context in production logs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. backend/src/main.rs:231

• Draft comment:
  Worker mode log now uses a shorter message 'worker mode'. Confirm the consistency with other logging and that all details remain clear.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. backend/src/main.rs:238

• Draft comment:
  Agent mode log updated to 'worker agent mode'. Verify if the new terminology is intentional and clear for users.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. backend/src/main.rs:253

• Draft comment:
  Indexer mode log simplified to 'indexer mode'. Confirm that reducing verbosity here does not lose important information.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. backend/src/main.rs:263

• Draft comment:
  Standalone+search mode log is now 'standalone mode with search enabled'. Verify that this message clearly reflects the mode's dual behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. backend/src/main.rs:270

• Draft comment:
  Default standalone mode log changed to 'standalone mode'. Ensure consistency in logging style across all modes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. backend/src/main.rs:228

• Draft comment:
  Consider using a unified logging method here. Currently, server mode logs with println while other modes (e.g. worker mode) use tracing::info. This inconsistency might be confusing during debugging.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. backend/src/main.rs:238

• Draft comment:
  The agent mode message now reads 'worker agent mode' instead of 'Binary is in 'agent' mode'. Confirm that the added 'worker' prefix accurately reflects this mode's intent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. backend/src/main.rs:253

• Draft comment:
  The indexer mode log message was simplified to 'indexer mode'. Ensure that this shorter message still provides enough context for debugging purposes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. backend/src/main.rs:260

• Draft comment:
  Standalone mode messages have been shortened (e.g. 'standalone mode with search enabled'). Verify that the reduced verbosity still offers sufficient clarity during troubleshooting.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

11. backend/src/main.rs:472

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The word 'unecessary' should be corrected to 'unnecessary' in the warning message for BASE_INTERNAL_URL.
• 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_ugudKxMHCYegRmTP

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Typographical suggestion: In the 'agent' mode branch, the printed message is 'worker agent mode'. This is inconsistent with the other mode messages (e.g., 'server mode', 'worker mode'). Consider changing it to 'agent mode' if that was the intent.

Suggested change

	println!("worker agent mode");
	println!("agent mode");

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on dea4e4f in 1 minute and 16 seconds

More details

• Looked at 15 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:114

• Draft comment:
  Verify that appending ${{ inputs.name }} to the cache scope is safe. Ensure that inputs.name is sanitized to avoid invalid characters that might break the cache key.
• 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 starts with "Verify that..." which is explicitly called out as likely not useful. Second, it's asking the author to double-check their work, which we shouldn't do. Third, GitHub Actions automatically sanitizes variable expansions, so this isn't actually a security concern. Fourth, since name is a required parameter, it must be provided and the workflow wouldn't run without it.
  Maybe there could be legitimate concerns about cache invalidation if the name contains special characters that affect the cache key format.
  GitHub Actions handles variable sanitization automatically, and the cache scope is an internal implementation detail of the GitHub Actions cache system that would handle special characters appropriately.
  This comment should be deleted as it's asking for verification without providing concrete issues, and the underlying concern about sanitization is handled automatically by the platform.

2. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:114

• Draft comment:
  The new cache keys now include ${{ inputs.name }}. Ensure that the input is sanitized and valid for use in cache scopes. Also, consider quoting these strings to avoid potential YAML parsing issues.
• 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%

1. GitHub Actions handles YAML parsing and variable interpolation automatically. 2. Cache scope names are internal to GitHub Actions and buildx. 3. The inputs.name parameter is already typed as a string. 4. There's no evidence of any security or parsing issues here. 5. This seems like speculative advice without clear evidence of a problem.
   Maybe there could be edge cases with special characters in the name input that could cause issues with cache scoping?
   GitHub Actions and buildx are designed to handle string interpolation safely, and there's no evidence of any actual issues here. This is speculative.
   This comment should be deleted as it's speculative advice without clear evidence of an actual problem, and asks for verification which violates our rules.

Workflow ID: wflow_4to0j37wkYFLL9dz

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 735ce54 in 43 seconds

More details

• Looked at 52 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/DockerfileBackendTests:43

• Draft comment:
  Ensure 1.2.3 is compatible with existing usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. Dockerfile:191

• Draft comment:
  Bun version updated; verify the new 1.2.3 image matches expectations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docker/DockerfileSlim:23

• Draft comment:
  Bun version bump to 1.2.3; check if any runtime behavior differences occur.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docker/DockerfileSlimEe:22

• Draft comment:
  Bun version updated to 1.2.3; ensure it's tested in this image context.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. .github/DockerfileBackendTests:43

• Draft comment:
  Bump bun image version to 1.2.3. Verify that the new image provides the expected binary at /usr/local/bin/bun.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify that the new image provides the expected binary. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to verify or ensure behavior, which is not allowed.

6. Dockerfile:194

• Draft comment:
  Bump bun image version to 1.2.3. Confirm that the new version is compatible with the rest of the build.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to a dependency change, specifically a version bump for a bun image. The comment asks the PR author to confirm compatibility, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

7. docker/DockerfileSlim:23

• Draft comment:
  Bump bun image version to 1.2.3. Ensure that the new image still places the bun binary correctly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is related to a dependency change, specifically a version bump of a bun image. The comment asks to ensure that the new image still places the bun binary correctly, which is a request to verify behavior. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to ensure behavior is intended or tested.

8. docker/DockerfileSlimEe:22

• Draft comment:
  Bump bun image version to 1.2.3. Verify that the change works in the EE build variant as expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is about a version bump of a dependency, which is not something I should comment on. Additionally, it asks the author to verify that the change works, which is against the rules.

9. .github/DockerfileBackendTests:22

• Draft comment:
  Minor typographical issue: On line 22, there is an extra space between 'libv8-dev' and 'nodejs'. Consider removing the extra space for consistency and readability.
• 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.

10. Dockerfile:133

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: In the echo message on line 133, 'pwshell' should be corrected to 'powershell' for consistency with the rest of the file.
• 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.

11. docker/DockerfileSlimEe:10

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting issue: There appears to be an extra space between 'xmlsec1' and 'software-properties-common' in the apt-get install command on line 10. While this is cosmetic and doesn't affect functionality, it would be good to clean it up for consistency.
• 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.

12. docker/DockerfileSlimEe:29

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting issue: There seems to be an extra space after '--chmod=755' on line 29. Consider removing the extra space for improved consistency.
• 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_wo6Cb8usqCacoQ81

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on a010426 in 1 minute and 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 15 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:120

• Draft comment:
  Ensure sudo doesn't block log output: verify passwordless sudo or add file existence check for /var/log/cacheproxy.log.
• 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 is a GitHub Actions workflow file running in a controlled CI environment. GitHub Actions runners typically have passwordless sudo configured by default. The file existence check is defensive programming but may not be strictly necessary. The comment is speculative about potential issues rather than addressing a definite problem.
  I could be wrong about the sudo configuration in the CI environment. The file existence check could prevent errors in logs if the file doesn't exist.
  While the suggestion is technically valid, it's overly cautious for a CI environment where sudo access is typically pre-configured and the log file's existence is expected.
  Delete the comment as it's speculative about potential issues rather than addressing a definite problem, and it's asking for verification which violates our rules.

2. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:120

• Draft comment:
  Consider two improvements: First, wrap the condition in ${{ always() }} for consistency with GitHub Actions expression syntax. Second, if /var/log/cacheproxy.log might not exist or be inaccessible, consider making the command resilient (e.g., using '|| true' or checking file existence) so that a missing log file does not fail the workflow.
• 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%
  The first suggestion about ${{ always() }} seems pedantic - both syntaxes work in GitHub Actions. The second suggestion about making the log reading more resilient has merit since missing logs could fail the step, but since this step itself runs on always(), a failure here wouldn't impact the overall workflow. The suggestions are technically correct but not critical enough to warrant a comment.
  The log file resilience suggestion could prevent unnecessary error messages in the workflow output, which might be valuable for debugging.
  While making the command more resilient could slightly improve the workflow, the current implementation is adequate since the step's failure won't block the workflow due to if: always().
  The suggestions are minor optimizations rather than significant improvements or fixes for actual problems. The comment should be removed.

3. .github/workflows/multi-build-arch.yml:114

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be an inconsistency in the naming: the matrix defines the runner with the prefix 'ubicloud-standard-', but the cache scopes prepend 'ubicloud-' (resulting in something like 'ubicloud-ubicloud-standard-...'). Please verify and adjust the naming for consistency.
• 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_nQAmrffU6JRO91eF

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on f1c6161 in 51 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. Dockerfile:80

• Draft comment:
  Parallelizing cargo build with --jobs $(nproc) can speed up builds; ensure sufficient resources in CI environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. Dockerfile:80

• Draft comment:
  Adding '--jobs $(nproc)' speeds up builds but may increase memory usage on multi-core systems. Ensure 'nproc' is available in the slim image, or consider a fallback if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. Dockerfile:133

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the error message for Powershell installation, 'pwshell' should be corrected to 'powershell'.
• 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.

4. Dockerfile:184

• Draft comment:
  Minor grammatical suggestion: The comment about prewarming go build reads 'go build is slower the first time it is ran'. Consider changing 'ran' to 'run' for clarity.
• 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_rGh0B6VooZXPnzYo

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

⚠️ This PR is too big for Ellipsis, but support for larger PRs is coming soon. If you want us to prioritize this feature, let us know at help@ellipsis.dev

---

Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev

[ellipsis-dev]

⚠️ This PR is too big for Ellipsis, but support for larger PRs is coming soon. If you want us to prioritize this feature, let us know at help@ellipsis.dev

---

Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev