Jose/ansible_role_proxmox_provision
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

style 💎: Remove unnecessary blank line and ensure consistent formatting #25

Merged
Jose merged 4 commits from dev into main 2026-02-14 12:09:29 +01:00
Conversation 1 Commits 4 Files Changed 3 +33 -3
Jose commented 2026-02-14 12:07:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

This commit removes any unnecessary blank lines throughout the codebase and ensures that all files follow a consistent formatting style, improving readability and maintainability.

This commit removes any unnecessary blank lines throughout the codebase and ensures that all files follow a consistent formatting style, improving readability and maintainability.
Jose added 4 commits 2026-02-14 12:07:46 +01:00
refactor ♻️: Refactor event triggers for workflows
All checks were successful
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 14s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 13s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Details
18e0ed96ea 
Updated the `ansible-lint` and `markdown-lint` workflows by adding new event types (`opened`) to their issue triggers.
feat ✨: Add logic to update PR comments and labels based on CI results
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 7s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 18s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Failing after 8s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
5ff377223a 
This commit introduces new functionality that updates pull request comments and labels automatically based on the outcomes of continuous integration tests. This enhances the efficiency and visibility of the review process by providing immediate feedback directly within the PR interface.
refactor ♻️: Remove 'ci-pass' label and update comment on PR check
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 7s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
c5e6c2a431 
Refactored the PR check process by removing the 'ci-pass' label and updating the associated comment to reflect the new workflow.
style 💎: Remove unnecessary blank line and ensure consistent formatting
All checks were successful
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 6s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 21s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 3s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 14s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Successful in 1s
Details
af107ca1ee 
This commit removes any unnecessary blank lines throughout the codebase and ensures that all files follow a consistent formatting style, improving readability and maintainability.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment
Copy Link

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml: Changes in the ansible-lint.yml workflow file: This modification separates the event triggers (push and issues) to improve readability and maintainability. However, there seems to be an unnecessary empty line added between on: and its child elements. To avoid confusion, I recommend removing it.
  • .gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml: Changes in the markdown-lint.yml workflow file: The workflow is now triggered on both push events and opened issues. This could potentially increase the number of runs, which might impact performance if the workflows are resource-intensive.
  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml: Addition of 'ci-pass' label and removal of 'ci-failed' label conditionally based on their presence Reopening Pull Request if closed LGTM (With minor issues and suggestions)
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml**: **Changes in the ansible-lint.yml workflow file:** This modification separates the event triggers (push and issues) to improve readability and maintainability. However, there seems to be an unnecessary empty line added between `on:` and its child elements. To avoid confusion, I recommend removing it. * **.gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml**: Changes in the `markdown-lint.yml` workflow file: The workflow is now triggered on both push events and opened issues. This could potentially increase the number of runs, which might impact performance if the workflows are resource-intensive. * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml**: **Addition of 'ci-pass' label and removal of 'ci-failed' label conditionally based on their presence** **Reopening Pull Request if closed** LGTM (With minor issues and suggestions)
.gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml
@@ -4,2 +4,3 @@
on: [issues, push]
on:
push:
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
Copy Link

[Lines 5-6] [Score: 3] Unnecessary empty line between trigger events. Consider removing it for consistency and readability.

[Lines 5-6] [Score: 3] Unnecessary empty line between trigger events. Consider removing it for consistency and readability.
.gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml
@@ -2,7 +2,10 @@
# .gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml
name: Markdown Lint
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
Copy Link

[Lines 2-3] [Score: 2] Workflow is now triggered for both push events and opened issues, which could impact performance if the workflows are resource-intensive. Consider limiting the workflow runs to reduce potential overhead.

[Lines 2-3] [Score: 2] Workflow is now triggered for both push events and opened issues, which could impact performance if the workflows are resource-intensive. Consider limiting the workflow runs to reduce potential overhead.
.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml
@@ -107,3 +114,4 @@
# Add label if missing
LABELS=$(curl -s -H "Authorization: token $TOKEN" "$API/issues/$PR/labels" | jq -r '.[] | .name')
if ! echo "$LABELS" | grep -q "^ci-failed$"; then
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
Copy Link

[Lines 107-117] [Score: 2] The code has been modified to remove the 'ci-pass' label if it exists and add it back if it doesn't. This might lead to inconsistency in label usage, as removing the label could happen before it is added back in certain scenarios.

[Lines 107-117] [Score: 2] The code has been modified to remove the 'ci-pass' label if it exists and add it back if it doesn't. This might lead to inconsistency in label usage, as removing the label could happen before it is added back in certain scenarios.
.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml
@@ -159,1 +173,4 @@
# Add ci-pass if not present
if ! echo "$LABELS" | grep -q "^ci-pass$"; then
echo "Adding ci-pass label"
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
Copy Link

[Lines 155-176] [Score: 2] The code has been modified to remove the 'ci-failed' label if it exists and add the 'ci-pass' label if it doesn't. While this is a good practice to ensure that at least one of these labels is always present, it might lead to inconsistency in label usage, as removing the 'ci-failed' label could happen before it is added back in certain scenarios.

[Lines 155-176] [Score: 2] The code has been modified to remove the 'ci-failed' label if it exists and add the 'ci-pass' label if it doesn't. While this is a good practice to ensure that at least one of these labels is always present, it might lead to inconsistency in label usage, as removing the 'ci-failed' label could happen before it is added back in certain scenarios.
.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml
@@ -160,3 +183,4 @@
# Reopen PR if closed
PR_STATE=$(curl -s -H "Authorization: token $TOKEN" "$API/pulls/$PR" | jq -r '.state')
if [ "$PR_STATE" = "closed" ]; then
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 12:08:07 +01:00
Copy Link

[Lines 184-186] [Score: 2] The code reopens the pull request if it is closed. This might lead to unnecessary confusion and potential merge conflicts if the pull request was closed appropriately. It's generally better to have explicit human intervention before reopening closed pull requests.

[Lines 184-186] [Score: 2] The code reopens the pull request if it is closed. This might lead to unnecessary confusion and potential merge conflicts if the pull request was closed appropriately. It's generally better to have explicit human intervention before reopening closed pull requests.
gitea-actions bot added the ci-pass label 2026-02-14 12:08:32 +01:00
Jose merged commit 7f41a17eb7 into main 2026-02-14 12:09:29 +01:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
Documentation
bug
Something is not working
 ci-failed
action test workflow failed
 ci-pass
action test workflow pass
 duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
 enhancement
New feature
 help wanted
Need some help
 invalid
Something is wrong
 question
More information is needed
 source
wontfix
This won't be fixed
No Label ci-pass
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
Jose
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Jose/ansible_role_proxmox_provision#25
Delete Branch "dev"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?