Skip to content

fix(ci): allow ci PR title scope#892

Merged
phernandez merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/allow-ci-pr-title-scope
Jun 5, 2026
Merged

fix(ci): allow ci PR title scope#892
phernandez merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
codex/allow-ci-pr-title-scope

Conversation

@phernandez
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Allows ci as a semantic PR title scope, matching the CI workflow changes we are now making. Adds a small regression test that reads .github/workflows/pr-title.yml and asserts the scope is present.

Signed-off-by: phernandez <paul@basicmachines.co>
@phernandez phernandez merged commit a6cfed9 into main Jun 5, 2026
21 of 24 checks passed
@phernandez phernandez deleted the codex/allow-ci-pr-title-scope branch June 5, 2026 02:05
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Claude finished @phernandez's task in 1m 3s —— View job


PR Review: fix(ci): allow ci PR title scope

  • Gather context and read changed files
  • Review against Basic Memory team checklist
  • Post final review

Summary

Clean, minimal PR. Adds ci to the allowed scopes in .github/workflows/pr-title.yml, updates the documentation in AGENTS.md, and adds a regression test. All three changes are tightly aligned.


Code Quality & Standards

  • Follows Basic Memory coding conventions
  • No Python complexity — just a YAML config change and a simple test
  • 100-character line limit maintained
  • No commented-out code

Testing & Documentation

  • Regression test added (tests/test_pr_title_workflow.py)
  • AGENTS.md documentation updated with ci in both allowed types and scopes lists
  • No edge-case gaps for this type of change

Minor observation on the test: _semantic_pr_action_inputs() reads from the relative path .github/workflows/pr-title.yml. This works because pytest is configured to run from the repo root (testpaths = ["tests", "test-int"] in pyproject.toml), so there's no issue in practice. For extra robustness, Path(__file__).parent.parent / ".github/workflows/pr-title.yml" would make the test location-independent, but this is a low-priority nit for a file that never moves.

Note: The test asserts ci is in scopes but not in types (where ci is also listed on line 32 of the workflow). That's fine — the PR description's intent is scope coverage, and the types list is unlikely to be the regression target here.

Basic Memory Architecture

  • Not applicable — no Python source changes

Security & Performance

  • No secrets, no sensitive data
  • No performance implications

Compatibility

  • No platform-specific concerns

Verdict: ✅ Approved. The change is correct and well-scoped. The regression test is a good addition to prevent this scope from being accidentally removed in future workflow refactors.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant