ci: implementing migrator workflow #3878

germa89 · 2025-04-30T11:04:15Z

Summary

As the title.

This pull request introduces a new GitHub Actions workflow, migrator.yml, designed to handle pull requests originating from forks. The workflow ensures that secrets required for CI processes can be accessed by migrating the forked PR into a branch within the base repository.

Close #3867

Changes

New Workflow: Added migrator.yml to workflows.
Trigger Events:
- Automatically triggered by comments containing @pyansys-ci-bot migrate or @pyansys-ci-bot sync on pull requests.
- Can also be triggered manually via workflow_dispatch with an issue number input.
Key Steps:
- Reacts to comments to confirm or denies the action
- Fetches details about the source branch and repository.
- Clones the PyMAPDL repository and add the forked repo as remote.
- Creates a new branch in the base repository, merges the forked branch, and pushes the changes.
- Opens a new pull request in the base repository if one does not already exist.
- Posts comments to indicate success or failure of the migration process.

This workflow simplifies the process of handling forked pull requests, improving developer experience.

Example of fork PR: #3868
Example of migrated PR: #3886

Summary by Sourcery

Implement a GitHub Actions workflow to migrate pull requests from forks, enabling secure CI processes and improving developer experience

New Features:

Developed automated PR migration process that creates a new branch in the base repository
Added comment reactions and status updates for migration workflow

CI:

Added migrator workflow to handle pull requests from forks
Implemented workflow triggered by comments or manual dispatch
Added member verification before migration process

Chores:

Created changelog entry for the migrator workflow implementation

…tor workflow

…n migrator workflow

…ry lines

…rator workflow

…t commands

…nd enhancing checkout process

…ling with improved branch checks and comments

…nd adding existence check for new branch

…d updating comment structure

…istence message formatting

…prove body formatting

ansys-reviewer-bot · 2025-04-30T11:04:18Z

Thanks for opening a Pull Request. If you want to perform a review write a comment saying:

@ansys-reviewer-bot review

…ng PRs

…body checks" This reverts commit f5f8485.

…ng existing PRs" This reverts commit 6a313ed.

…h reference

…reation

…PR details

…replying to comments

…rkflow

… migration4

…n5 in PR handler

germa89 · 2025-05-26T20:32:35Z

@RobPasMue @klmcadams @jorgepiloto @ansys/pyansys-core

I think this is now ready.

forked PR: #3955
migrated PR: #3956

RobPasMue

LGTM! Saw you ended up going with raw JS + GitHub's dev package. Wasn't it easier to just use the octokit/request-action? I personally don't like JS that much but that's very opinionated 😆

RobPasMue · 2025-05-27T06:52:09Z

.github/actions/pytest-summary/action.yml

+        path: tests_durations.json
+        github-token: ${{ inputs.token }}


Weird - why is the token needed here?

Agreed... I saw a weird permission error when trying to download the artifacts ... so I thought about including the token there. I might have been due to recent outages though.

germa89 · 2025-05-27T09:14:38Z

LGTM! Saw you ended up going with raw JS + GitHub's dev package. Wasn't it easier to just use the octokit/request-action? I personally don't like JS that much but that's very opinionated 😆

I would have been easier yes.... however I found out some troubles when trying to get the user teams. Additionally, I find the core.exportVariable quite useful, and cleaner than the bash equivalent. Also the logging, debugging, etc seems more robusts... ofc one might think "of course, that's how github is coded, it should be more complete than just using actions and bash"... so I took the opportunity to learn about it (and waste a full afternoon xD)

// Export variables for later steps
core.exportVariable('PR_NUMBER', prNumber);

jorgepiloto · 2025-05-27T09:33:31Z

.github/workflows/migrator.yml

    if: |
       (
        github.event.issue.pull_request != null &&
-        contains(github.event.comment.body, '@pyansys-ci-bot migrate') &&
-        github.event.comment.user.login == 'germa89' 
+        (contains(github.event.comment.body, '@pyansys-ci-bot migrate') || contains(github.event.comment.body, '@pyansys-ci-bot sync') )


From my understanding:

Outside contributor makes a push

Owners with write access must approve the CI/CD run for the new push

This triggers

If any of previous comments, the sync gets performed

If this is the process, then it is still safe since this does not trigger unless maintainers approve the CI/CD to run.

It means that the user can not just go and make a comment. The comment is not captured until the maintainer approves the CI/CD run.

The user check is done later in the workflow. But yes, from a forked repo, each PR requires a manual approval for the CICD to run the first time. After that first run, it is no longer required in that specific PR.

The migrator does not need this approval since it is running in pymapdl repo, hence it is not coming from outside.

Outside contributor makes a push

Owners with write access must approve the CI/CD run for the new push

Does it mean a person, external from the Ansys organization, with write access can trigger the workflow?

jorgepiloto · 2025-05-27T09:53:21Z

Why not force pushing to the mirror pull-request? This ensures a mirror state with the original. If everything is fine in the original branch, then the mirror is fine.

Otherwise, you'll need to fix merge conflicts twice in the original and then in the mirror.

germa89 · 2025-05-27T10:14:19Z

Why not force pushing to the mirror pull-request? This ensures a mirror state with the original. If everything is fine in the original branch, then the mirror is fine.

Otherwise, you'll need to fix merge conflicts twice in the original and then in the mirror.

I would expect that for some cases I might have to work also on the mirror PR inside PyMAPDL to fix stuff (code, docs, ect). So in that case, I think it is better not to force?

clatapie

I think it's a good approach!
Is it already documented in the Contribution file (from the user perspective)?
Also, we could add documentation on the process to follow for the developer perspective. It could either go in a PyMAPDL section, in the pyansys-dev-guide or somewhere else.

germa89 · 2025-05-28T09:26:12Z

I think it's a good approach! Is it already documented in the Contribution file (from the user perspective)? Also, we could add documentation on the process to follow for the developer perspective. It could either go in a PyMAPDL section, in the pyansys-dev-guide or somewhere else.

Good idea... it is not documented anywhere because there is no place for developer tools in the doc repo. I need to revamp the docs acording to #3510

Also, because we are not many at the point, I think we can keep it light. Also, we need to know if the workflow is going to be ported to ansys/actions. If it is, then the docs should go there.

@jorgepiloto are we good to merge?

RobPasMue · 2025-05-28T09:39:55Z

Also, because we are not many at the point, I think we can keep it light. Also, we need to know if the workflow is going to be ported to ansys/actions. If it is, then the docs should go there.

Yeah -- I'd love to see this eventually go up to the ansys/actions repo. This is a great addition. Let's roll it out here and iron out any potential issues. We can plan on adding it on the actions at v10.1.

RobPasMue · 2025-05-28T09:44:16Z

Just created ansys/actions#867 to track this down

germa89 · 2025-05-28T10:10:12Z

Also, because we are not many at the point, I think we can keep it light. Also, we need to know if the workflow is going to be ported to ansys/actions. If it is, then the docs should go there.

Yeah -- I'd love to see this eventually go up to the ansys/actions repo. This is a great addition. Let's roll it out here and iron out any potential issues. We can plan on adding it on the actions at v10.1.

germa89 added 23 commits April 24, 2025 11:26

fix: add reaction to issue comments in migrator workflow

4f956e6

feat: add workflow_dispatch input for issue number in migrator workflow

a35a2be

refactor: simplify PR checkout process in migrator workflow

70ee48a

fix: add missing environment variable for GH_TOKEN in migrator workflow

3afcf2d

feat: add checkout step for PR branch and push to new remote in migra…

059f03f

…tor workflow

fix: comment out remote addition and push steps in migrator workflow

fde8d26

feat: add logging for base ref in migrator workflow

98cb949

feat: add detailed logging for PR information in migrator workflow

0bf47f5

refactor: enhance logging for PR data and update checkout reference i…

639db31

…n migrator workflow

refactor: clean up logging in migrator workflow by removing unnecessa…

9c8e0b4

…ry lines

fix: update logging to output GitHub event as JSON in migrator workflow

a3de3a4

feat: add checkout step for PR branch in migrator workflow

1f507ce

fix: add GITHUB_TOKEN environment variable for branch checkout in mig…

1f28c74

…rator workflow

fix: update checkout step to use 'git status' instead of commented-ou…

6bf7f25

…t commands

refactor: streamline PR migration workflow by removing unused steps a…

4f9edc6

…nd enhancing checkout process

refactor: rename job from 'recreate' to 'migrate' and enhance PR hand…

85ce0c7

…ling with improved branch checks and comments

fix: update branch name variable in remote check and push logic

4bba7e8

fix: streamline remote branch handling by moving remote name export a…

306375a

…nd adding existence check for new branch

refactor: enhance PR handling by improving branch existence checks an…

e141039

…d updating comment structure

fix: remove unnecessary environment variable export and improve PR ex…

58e8448

…istence message formatting

fix: improve formatting of branch existence messages in PR handling

319a5a0

fix: update PR creation command to use single quotes for title

e871f0a

fix: update PR creation command to use double quotes for title and im…

8d34d7d

…prove body formatting

germa89 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 30, 2025 11:04

germa89 requested review from clatapie and pyansys-ci-bot April 30, 2025 11:04

germa89 changed the title ~~chore: hello~~ ci: implementing migrator workflow Apr 30, 2025

germa89 self-assigned this Apr 30, 2025

fix: improve PR creation command by enhancing title and body formatting

bc49a08

germa89 added 6 commits May 26, 2025 20:53

fix: update GitHub token

5d127de

fix: update notification message for existing PR migration attempts

ac86809

fix: add recreate option to PR migration workflow for handling existi…

6a313ed

…ng PRs

fix: remove recreate input from workflow and update comment body checks

f5f8485

revert: "fix: remove recreate input from workflow and update comment …

c580db4

…body checks" This reverts commit f5f8485.

revert: "fix: add recreate option to PR migration workflow for handli…

4db8b67

…ng existing PRs" This reverts commit 6a313ed.

germa89 mentioned this pull request May 26, 2025

new forked pr #3949

Closed

germa89 added 10 commits May 26, 2025 21:43

fix: update debug logging and correct branch reference for existing PRs

ba15d0d

fix: correct PR migration base branch to 'main' and update head branc…

ee2a8cb

…h reference

fix: update PR title format and change debug log to info for new PR c…

fdac0ad

…reation

fix: update base branch naming convention in PR migration workflow

7b9b9ad

fix: update base branch naming convention in PR creation and log new …

1d2f2e3

…PR details

fix: enhance reaction handling by deleting previous reactions before …

618fd7a

…replying to comments

fix: add comment ID handling for reaction deletion in PR migration wo…

3b1817a

…rkflow

fix: update base branch naming convention in PR migration workflow to…

e4bbbdb

… migration4

fix: update base branch naming convention from migration4 to migratio…

1007776

…n5 in PR handler

chore: revert temp changes on naming

567d81c

RobPasMue reviewed May 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

jorgepiloto reviewed May 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

germa89 requested a review from jorgepiloto May 27, 2025 14:38

clatapie reviewed May 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

RobPasMue mentioned this pull request May 28, 2025

PR migrator workflow ansys/actions#867

Open

ci: implementing migrator workflow #3878

Are you sure you want to change the base?

ci: implementing migrator workflow #3878

Conversation

germa89 commented Apr 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Changes

Summary by Sourcery

Uh oh!

ansys-reviewer-bot bot commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

germa89 commented May 26, 2025

Uh oh!

RobPasMue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RobPasMue May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

germa89 May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

germa89 commented May 27, 2025

Uh oh!

jorgepiloto May 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

germa89 May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

germa89 May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

clatapie May 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jorgepiloto commented May 27, 2025

Uh oh!

germa89 commented May 27, 2025

Uh oh!

clatapie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

germa89 commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

RobPasMue commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

RobPasMue commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

germa89 commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

germa89 commented Apr 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jorgepiloto May 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading