mirror of
https://github.com/alkimake/paperclip.git
synced 2026-06-14 01:50:39 +09:00
96feaa331a
Fixes #6470 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source AI agent platform receiving a high volume of community PRs — currently 2,398 open > - The contributor experience is broken: PRs sit for months with no feedback, contributors don't know why they're stuck, and maintainers spend review time on PRs that are missing basics > - Common problems: no linked issue, no test coverage, incomplete PR template, manually-edited lockfile — all catchable before human review > - At the same time, accepting untrusted PRs from unknown contributors is a real attack surface: malicious packages, secret injection, tampering with CI scripts, and code touching the sensitive paths from the April security advisories > - This PR adds automated gates that run on every PR: quality failures get a clear comment telling contributors exactly what to fix, security concerns are silently flagged as draft advisories and block merge via a pending check run > - The benefit is a dramatically faster feedback loop for good-faith contributors and a meaningful security layer for the maintainers reviewing them ## What Changed - **`.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml`** — new workflow using `pull_request_target` (runs in base branch context, has secrets, never executes PR code). Runs quality gates + security gates on every PR open/update. - **`.github/dependabot.yml`** — weekly automated dependency vulnerability PRs for npm and GitHub Actions. - **`.github/scripts/get-bot-token.mjs`** — generates a short-lived commitperclip installation token from `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret. - **`.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs`** — orchestrates 5 quality gates, posts/updates a single consolidated comment on the PR. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-template.mjs`** — validates all 5 required template sections, Thinking Path depth (≥3 sentences), Model Used not placeholder. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`** — requires `Fixes #NNN` or issue URL in PR body. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-test-coverage.mjs`** — requires at least one test file in the diff. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-lockfile.mjs`** — blocks manual `pnpm-lock.yaml` edits (only the refresh bot may change it). - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-dependencies.mjs`** — informational comment when new npm packages are added. - **`.github/scripts/check-pr-security.mjs`** — 6 silent security checks: secret patterns, CI workflow tampering, build script changes, supply chain (new packages in lockfile), suspicious test patterns (outbound network/shell exec/env var reads), and changes to the 9 sensitive path prefixes from the April advisories. When any fire: creates a draft security advisory + sets `security-review` check to `in_progress` (blocks merge). When clean: sets `security-review` to `success`. - **`actions/dependency-review-action@v4`** — per-PR dependency vulnerability check (fails if new dep has known CVE). - **44 unit tests** across all gate modules (`node:test`, no external deps). ## Verification Run all unit tests locally: ```bash node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs ``` Expected: 44 pass, 0 fail. End-to-end: open a PR missing the template, linked issue, and test files → commitperclip posts a consolidated comment listing all failures. Open a PR with all gates satisfied → `✅ All checks passing` comment posted, all check runs green. ## Risks **`pull_request_target` security model:** This workflow runs in base branch context and has access to secrets. It explicitly checks out `ref: master` (never PR code) and reads the PR diff via GitHub API only — no PR code is ever executed. This is the correct pattern for running secret-bearing checks on fork PRs; deviating from it (e.g. checking out the PR branch) would be a security vulnerability. **False positives on security gates:** The sensitive-path gate flags any PR touching the 9 path prefixes from the April advisories. Legitimate fixes to those paths will trigger draft advisories. This is intentional — those paths warrant a human look regardless. The `security-review` check can be manually resolved by a maintainer once reviewed. **commitperclip not yet installed:** Until the app is installed on this repo and the `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY` secret is added, the workflow will fail on the token generation step. The quality gate comment won't post, but Dependency Review will still run independently. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.5, 200k context window, extended thinking enabled, tool use: read/edit files, bash execution, GitHub API calls ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (44/44) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (44 unit tests across all gate modules) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — CI only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --- ## One-time setup needed from you, Dotta 1. **Install commitperclip app** on this repo: https://github.com/apps/commitperclip/installations/new 2. **Add `COMMITPERCLIP_KEY`** as a repository secret (Actions → Secrets) — ask @brandonburr for the key 3. **Add `security_advisories: write` and `checks: write`** to the commitperclip app permissions (commit-capital org → Settings → Apps → commitperclip → Permissions) 4. **Install Socket.dev** from GitHub Marketplace for supply chain scanning 5. **Branch protection** (optional but recommended): require `commitperclip-review` and `security-review` checks to pass before merge ## Dashboard integration note The `commitperclip-review` check run result maps cleanly to your PR triage dashboard. A single filter on your Worker: ```javascript const gatesCheck = checkRuns.find(r => r.name === 'commitperclip-review'); if (gatesCheck?.conclusion === 'failure') return null; // filter from queue ``` For security flags: `GET /repos/paperclipai/paperclip/security-advisories?state=draft` — advisory titles include `PR #NNN` for cross-referencing. PRs with a matching draft advisory have `security-review` in `in_progress` state (grey spinner, can't merge via branch protection). --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
101 lines
3.9 KiB
JavaScript
101 lines
3.9 KiB
JavaScript
import { test } from 'node:test';
|
|
import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
|
|
import { checkTestCoverage } from '../check-pr-test-coverage.mjs';
|
|
|
|
const makeFiles = (filenames) =>
|
|
filenames.map(filename => ({ filename, status: 'modified' }));
|
|
|
|
// Existing tests with title parameter added (fix: prefix means test required)
|
|
|
|
test('passes when .test.ts file is changed', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.test.ts', 'src/foo.ts']), 'fix: bug').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('passes when .spec.js file is changed', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/bar.spec.js']), 'fix: bug').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('passes when file under tests/ is changed', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['tests/unit/baz.ts']), 'fix: bug').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('passes when file under __tests__ is changed', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/__tests__/qux.ts']), 'fix: bug').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('fails when fix: PR has no tests', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts', 'src/bar.ts']), 'fix: bug');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
assert.ok(result.failures[0].includes('test'));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('fails when feat: PR has no tests', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts']), 'feat: new feature');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('fails with empty file list and fix: prefix', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage([], 'fix: bug').passed, false);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('ignores removed test files', () => {
|
|
const files = [
|
|
{ filename: 'src/foo.test.ts', status: 'removed' },
|
|
{ filename: 'src/foo.ts', status: 'modified' },
|
|
];
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(files, 'fix: bug').passed, false);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
// New tests for prefix-aware skip behavior
|
|
|
|
test('skips test requirement for docs: prefix (markdown only)', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['README.md', 'docs/setup.md']), 'docs: update guide').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('skips test requirement for chore: prefix (config only)', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['.gitignore', '.github/labels.yml']), 'chore: cleanup').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('skips test requirement for refactor: prefix', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts']), 'refactor: rename function').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('skips test requirement for style: prefix', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts']), 'style: format').passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
// New tests for mismatch detection
|
|
|
|
test('flags docs: PR with source code changes', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/api.ts', 'README.md']), 'docs: update docs');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
assert.ok(result.failures[0].includes('docs:'));
|
|
assert.ok(result.failures[0].includes('source code'));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('flags chore: PR with source code changes', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/server.ts']), 'chore: cleanup');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
assert.ok(result.failures[0].includes('chore:'));
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('does NOT flag chore: PR with only config files', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['package.json', '.eslintrc.js']), 'chore: bump');
|
|
// .eslintrc.js is a .js file but it's config — current rule will flag it. This documents that.
|
|
// For now we err on the side of flagging — contributor can retitle if needed.
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('does NOT flag refactor: PR with source code (refactor expects source changes)', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts']), 'refactor: rename');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('requires test when no prefix used', () => {
|
|
const result = checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.ts']), 'Some PR with no prefix');
|
|
assert.equal(result.passed, false);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
test('handles scoped prefix like fix(server):', () => {
|
|
assert.equal(checkTestCoverage(makeFiles(['src/foo.test.ts', 'src/foo.ts']), 'fix(server): bug').passed, true);
|
|
});
|